Case Title: Lovett v. Gore Newspapers Co.

Citation: 419 So. 2d 306

Docket Number: 60430

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1982-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
419 So. 2d 306 (1982)
Lilla LOVETT, Petitioner,
v.
GORE NEWSPAPERS COMPANY and Zurich Insurance Company, Respondents.
No. 60430.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 15, 1982.
Rehearing Denied October 5, 1982.
Dennis M. Usdan of the Law Offices of Nolan & Usdan, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Joseph H. Lowe of Marlow, Shofi, Ortmayer, Smith, Connell & Valerius, Miami, for respondents.
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before the Court on petition for review of the decision of the district court of appeal on the ground of express and direct conflict with decisions of this Court. The decision below, Gore Newspapers Company v. Lovett, 393 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), conflicts with Foxworth v. Florida Industrial Commission, 86 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1955), and Protectu Awning Shutter Co. v. Cline, 154 Fla. 30, 16 So. 2d 342 (1944). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
This case arises from the petitioner's claim of workers' compensation from the respondents. Petitioner Lilla Lovett was a 59-year-old widow who suffered from a congenital condition known as scoliosis which is characterized by a very marked curvature of the spine. This pre-existing condition was aggravated when petitioner fell at work, striking her back on a linoleum-covered concrete floor. The employer, Gore Newspapers Company, and its insurer, Zurich Insurance Company, contested petitioner's workers' compensation claim, contending that the accident was not one arising out of and in the course of her employment. A deputy commissioner held a hearing and found the following facts:
Original Record at 265-68.
The district court of appeal reversed, holding that while the accident occurred in the course of petitioner's employment it did not arise out of her employment. In reaching this conclusion the district court found that the conditions of employment did not contribute to the fall which brought about petitioner's injury. In so finding, the district court erred.
As the deputy commissioner found, on the night of the accident petitioner was required to work two hours beyond her normal eight-hour shift despite her protestations that she was not feeling well. The tiled concrete floor, as the deputy commissioner also found, was a special and increased hazard to appellant's pre-existing back condition. Because of these factors it cannot fairly be said that petitioner would just as likely have sustained an injury such as the one that occurred if she had been in her own home. See Protectu Awning Shutter Co. v. Cline, 154 Fla. 30, 16 So. 2d 342 (1944) (fall on floor at work, caused in part by injured worker's physical/condition, was a compensable accident); Cheney v. F.E.C. News Distribution Co., 382 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (fall caused by the effect of the nature of the work on claimant's physical condition, and aggravating a pre-existing condition, was compensable). "In this highly controversial area, [idiopathic falls causing injury on the job] this court has favored the more liberal view allowing recovery." Foxworth v. Florida Industrial Commission, 86 So. 2d 147, 152 (Fla. 1955). We therefore hold that the district court erred in overturning the deputy commissioner's finding that petitioner's employment, along with her personal physical condition, caused her to fall and sustain injury. The injury arose out of and was sustained in the course of petitioner's employment and was therefore compensable.
The decision of the district court of appeal is quashed and the case is remanded with directions that the deputy commissioner's order be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and McDONALD, JJ., concur.