Case Name: J.D. CUMBIE, Appellant, v. CITY OF MILTON and Adjusto, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-10-28
Citations: 496 So. 2d 923
Docket Number: No. BJ-321
Parties: J.D. CUMBIE, Appellant, v. CITY OF MILTON and Adjusto, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: SHIVERS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 496
Pages: 923–926

Head Matter:
J.D. CUMBIE, Appellant, v. CITY OF MILTON and Adjusto, Inc., Appellees.
No. BJ-321.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 28, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1986.
Paula G. Drummond, Pensacola, for appellant.
James N. McConnaughhay and David A. McCranie of Karl, McConnaughhay, Roland, Maida & Beal, Tallahassee, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, Judge.
Claimant appeals an order denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits. We affirm.
Claimant contends the deputy commissioner erred in finding that because he did not undergo a physical examination upon entering his employment as a fireman, he was not entitled to the statutory presumption of § 112.18, Fla.Stat. Section 112.18 provides that any condition or impairment of health of any fireman caused by tuberculosis, heart disease or hypertension and resulting in total or partial disability or death shall be presumed to have been accidental and suffered in the line of duty unless the contrary be shown by competent evidence. As an apparent quid pro quo for granting this presumption to firemen the legislature further provided, "However, any such fireman shall have successfully passed a physical examination upon entering into any such service as a fireman, which examination failed to reveal any evidence of any such condition." § 112.18(1), Fla.Stat.
The claimant did not undergo a physical examination upon entering employment as a fireman for the City of Milton. The statute creating the presumption is very clear and unambiguous and requires a physical examination upon entering into any service as a fireman as a prerequisite to entitlement to the presumption. A physical examination prior to receiving the benefit of the presumption is a reasonable requirement in order to determine if any of the conditions covered by the statute existed prior to employment. It is not the function of an appellate court to amend, repeal or disregard the clear and unambiguous language of a statute, even if the result may appear inequitable and the wisdom of its enactment questionable. Citizens v. Public Service Commission, 435 So.2d 784 (Fla.1983); Good Housekeeping Gas Company v. Kitler, 492 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The enactment, repeal or modification of a legislative act is the sole prerogative of the legislature.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS, J., concurs.
ERVIN, J., dissents.