Yates v. Gabrio Elec. Co., 33287

• Decision Date: 23 September 1964
• Docket Number: No. 33287,33287
• Citation: 167 So.2d 565
• Parties: Mary YATES, Widow of Loren Yates, Deceased Employee, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. GABRIO ELECTRIC COMPANY, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, and Florida Petitioners.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 565

167 So.2d 565

Mary YATES, Widow of Loren Yates, Deceased Employee, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. GABRIO ELECTRIC COMPANY, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, and Florida Petitioners.

No. 33287.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 23, 1964.

Robert E. Beach, of Roney & Beach, St. Petersburg, for petitioner and cross-respondent.

E. O. Palermo and John McQuigg, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, Glos & Evans, Tampa, for Gabrio Electric Co. and Federated Mut. Ins. Co., respondents and cross-petitioners.

Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondents.

THORNAL, Justice.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission which reversed an Order of a deputy commissioner who had awarded workmen's compensation death benefits to the widow of an employee.

We must decide primarily whether the facts presented by the record place the instant case within the confines of our opinion in Victor Wine and Liquor, Inc. v. Beasley, Fla., 141 So.2d 581.

A myocardial infarction caused the death of Loren Yates on March 23, 1962. For seven years Mr. Yates had been employed by Gabrio Electric Co. as an electrician and, incidentally, as a general handyman. Approximately 90% of his working time was devoted to the work of an electrician. During the remainder of the time he was called upon to do incidental chores which, on occasions, involved operating a line truck and ditch digger, bending relatively heavy conduits and similar work. The employee was physically a large man, weighing more than 200 pounds and standing better than six feet tall. On the fatal day he was performing his work as an electrician. At 12:30 P.M. he was directed to proceed to a cement works to load on a pickup truck a number of concrete blocks, each of which weighed between 100 and 125 pounds. Mr. Yates loaded two of the blocks without assistance. He had assistance in loading sixteen or eighteen additional blocks. The loading was one continuous operation which took approximately 20 minutes. Upon completing this chore Yates left the concrete plant and at 1:20 P.M. was found lying by his truck on the side of a road with severe chest pains. He was taken immediately to a hospital where a doctor diagnosed his condition as an acute myocardial infarction. He died at 5:00 P.M. the same day.

The widow, Mary Yates, made claim to workmen's compensation benefits. After extensive hearings the deputy commissioner found for the claimant. He expressly held that the fatal heart attack was causally related to the employment; that any heavy labor performed by the employee was merely intermittent and was not a part of his routine employment; that the lifting and loading of the concrete blocks was not routine to the type of work Yates was accustomed to performing; that the lifting of the blocks subjected the employee to unusual strain which precipitated the heart attack; that the deceased employee had for some time been afflicted with a preexisting non-disabling coronary ailment; that the work-connected exertion was 66 2/3% responsible for the fatal infarction and the pre-existing coronary arteriosclerosis was a 33 1/3% contributing factor. The deputy awarded compensation benefits accordingly to the widow. On review the Full Commission reversed. It held as a matter of law that the activities of the decedent on the day of his death did not constitute an unusual exertion and that the deputy's finding of a causal relationship was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. It is this order which we now have for review.

The evidence presented to the deputy, admittedly, was in conflict. However, under United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla., 55 So.2d 741, it was the responsibility of the deputy to weigh the evidence. His decision should not be disturbed if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason.

On the matter of the type of work which Mr. Yates performed, the findings of the deputy are adequately supported. Both the employer and a fellow worker testified to the effect that 90% of Yates' time was devoted to relatively light work as an electrician's helper. The remaining 10% was devoted intermittently to what could be described as heavy work, such as bending conduits and operating the ditch digger. The employer testified further that the lifting and loading...