Case Name: Eleanor STINSON, Appellant, v. STROH'S BREWING COMPANY, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-03-28
Citations: 540 So. 2d 893
Docket Number: No. 87-1831
Parties: Eleanor STINSON, Appellant, v. STROH’S BREWING COMPANY, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellees.
Judges: BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 540
Pages: 893–896

Head Matter:
Eleanor STINSON, Appellant, v. STROH’S BREWING COMPANY, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellees.
No. 87-1831.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 28, 1989.
Peyton T. Jordan, Jr., Tampa, for appellant.
Joseph Murphy, Tampa, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eleanor Stinson, the surviving widow of a deceased worker, appeals an order of the deputy commissioner (deputy) denying medical expenses, temporary total disability, and death benefits as a result of her husband's death caused by a heart attack. We affirm.
Although the claimant has raised three issues on appeal, this is another case where the sole issue is whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the deputy's order. The three issues raised by the claimant are whether the deputy erred in finding that the work performed by the deceased prior to his heart attack was a usual task in his employment, whether the deputy erred in finding that there was inadequate proof to support the factual foundation of the hypothetical questions asked of the expert witnesses, and whether the deputy erred in finding the testimony of the treating physicians insufficient to show a causal relationship between the employee's work activities prior to July 16, 1983, and his death on September 19, 1985.
The deputy denied the claim for death benefits by the surviving widow finding that the deceased was not subjected to unusual strain or overexertion under the Victor Wine rule; that the work he performed was part of his usual duties as a maintenance mechanic which he and other mechanics had performed in the past and would be expected to perform in the future; that the malfunction of gear boxes was an expected, recurring problem in the brewery; and that the deceased employee, as maintenance mechanic, was expected to perform the necessary repairs as a usual task of his employment. Based on these findings the deputy concluded the requirements of Victor Wine were not satisfied. The deputy also found there was no causal relationship between the initial accident of July 16, 1983 and claimant's eventual death, and further found that there was inadequate proof to support the factual foundation of the hypothetical questions asked of the expert witnesses, thereby making those expert opinions insufficient to support the claim. There is ample competent substantial evidence to support these findings of fact and the deputy's conclusion the claim was not compensable. In this case, as is true in almost every other similar competent substantial evidence case, there are some conflicts in the evidence and some evidence that would support a finding that the claim is compen-sable, but as this court has said many, many times, that is not the issue before the court on appeal. The proper issue is whether there is any competent substantial evidence to support the deputy's order. There is, and therefore, we affirm.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents.
. Victor Wine & Liquor, Inc. v. Beasley, 141 So.2d 581 (Fla.1961).