Title: Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Company
Citation: 138 So. 2d 308
Docket Number: 31310
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: February 21, 1962

138 So. 2d 308 (1962)
Frankie SPIVEY, Petitioner,
v.
BATTAGLIA FRUIT COMPANY, Inc., and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
No. 31310.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 21, 1962.
*309 Robert E. Sheridan of Gurney, Gurney, &amp; Handley, Orlando, for petitioner.
Jack C. Inman of Berson, Barnes &amp; Inman, Orlando, Burnis T. Coleman and Paul E. Speh, Tallahassee, for respondents.
HOBSON, Justice.
Petitioner seeks by petition for writ of certiorari a review by this court of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission in a Workmen's Compensation proceeding, reversing the order of its deputy commissioner and denying to the petitioner benefits under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. Florida Statutes, Section 440.01 et seq., F.S.A.
At the time of the alleged injury petitioner had been working for the respondent Battaglia Fruit Company for approximately eight weeks as a packer of citrus fruit. Her work consisted of removing bruce boxes from a bin, packing them with fruit, then sliding them onto a moving conveyor. On the day in question she had been performing these tasks for approximately ten hours when she gradually started having pains in her back and legs. She does not recall the exact moment when the pains began but testified that she was packing grapefruit at the time. She continued working that evening and returned to work the next day. Because of the continuing pain, however, she ceased working after about two hours and sought medical treatment. Her condition was subsequently diagnosed as a herniated intervertebral disc. Corrective surgery was performed for which this claim was filed, together with a claim for other benefits under the Act.
The claim was contraverted on the grounds that claimant had not sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment or alternatively, if there was such an accident that the petitioner's condition was not the result of the accident.
At the hearing on the claim evidence was introduced showing the circumstances of the injury to be substantially as summarized above. In addition it appeared that the claimant had had no prior history of back trouble and that in the opinion of the doctors who examined her the ruptured disc was causally related to the work which she was performing at the time she began to feel pain. The deputy commissioner entered *310 an order awarding the claimant compensation benefits and held "that a ruptured disc when caused by job activity as it occurred in this case constitutes an accident within the definition of the Workmen's Compensation Law".
On application for review the full commission reversed. It was first held that the order of the deputy, which for the most part merely recited and summarized testimony which the deputy had heard, did not conform to the requisites of order writing as set forth in Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, Fla., 81 So. 2d 503; Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Fla., 92 So. 2d 521; Ball v. Mann, Fla., 75 So. 2d 758. The commission went on to hold, however, that based on the evidence which the deputy had before him there was no showing of any "accident" within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In so holding the commission relied on the case of Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Fla., 64 So. 2d 650, which, as the commission recognized, established the "unusual result" test as a criterion for the existence of an accident.[1] The commission went on to hold that the Gray case "did not relieve the claimant of showing some event or circumstance connected with his work to which his injury can be directly attributed". It is noteworthy that the commission, while extracting the above quoted language from the Gray case, quoted the word "circumstance" in the singular, whereas in the Gray case it is plural. Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, supra, at page 651. The difference, as will be hereinafter pointed out, is material.
The issue with which we are presented then is whether there was competent, substantial evidence to support the deputy's finding that the petitioner had suffered a compensable injury by accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Section 440.02(6) defines injury as follows
Section 440.02(19) provides in pertinent part:
As pointed out in the footnote one, supra, the words "or result" were inserted in the above statutory provision by act of the 1953 Legislature. Section 440.09(1) provides in part:
A study of these statutes reveals that there are set forth several separate requirements which must be satisfied before it can be held that there has been an accident within the meaning of the act. *311 First, there must be an unexpected or unusual event or result happening suddenly. It is plain from the statutory definition that the elements of unexpectedness and suddenness can refer to either an event or a result. The accident must also arise out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of employment" refer to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurs while the words "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause of the accident. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Richardson, 148 Fla. 323, 4 So. 2d 378. In order to satisfy these requirements there must be some causal connection between the injury and the employment or the injury must have had its origin in some risk incident to or connected with the employment or have flowed from it as a natural consequence. Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348. It has been held that in order to establish the causal connection inherent in the requirement that the injury must arise "out of" the employment, it must be shown that the injury was directly attributable to some event or circumstances connected with the accident. Martin v. Board of County Commissioners, Manatee County, Fla., 79 So. 2d 513. However, it was stated by this court in S.H. Kress &amp; Co. v. Burkes, 153 Fla. 868, 16 So. 2d 106, that "this court, as many others, has rejected the contention that in order to show an injury by accident some traumatic injury must be shown or some definite incident at a definite time and place must be shown."
Turning now to the application of these principles to the instant case it unquestionably appears that there is competent, substantial evidence to show that the injury occurred in the course of employment. This element of proof is satisfied by the fact that the pain of the petitioner commenced while she was at work and by the testimony of the physician who subsequently examined her.
There was also testimony by the doctor that in his expert opinion the petitioner's herniated intervertebral disc was causally related to her activities while at work. This evidence was sufficient upon which to base a finding of causal relationship; that is, that the injury also arose out of the employment. As pointed out previously, the case of Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, supra, states that "the claimant [is required] to make a showing of some event or circumstances connected with his work to which his injury can be directly attributed." (Emphasis supplied) Inasmuch as the plural word circumstances was used, it is clear that the court did not in that case mean that there must be any definite or particular circumstance to which the accident could be attributed, but only that the circumstances of the work were a causative factor of the injury. Thus we hold that the full commission erred in reversing the deputy's award on this point. See also Duff Hotel Company v. Ficara, 150 Fla. 442, 7 So. 2d 790, wherein it is held that an unexpected injury received in the ordinary performance of a duty in a usual manner is an "injury by accident within the purview of Workmen's Compensation without the showing of anything fortuitous."
The remaining question with which we are confronted is whether the element of suddenness as required by the statute was established by competent, substantial evidence. In this regard, the following testimony of the claimant is pertinent:
After leaving work, petitioner then sought medical attention and was subsequently hospitalized for a herniated disc. The above quoted testimony was corroborated in part by the testimony of fellow employees to whom petitioner had complained concerning her back pain.
Concerning the petitioner's injury, her doctor testified in part as follows:
The petitioner's testimony quoted above clearly places the occurrence of the injury within the confines of a narrow space of time. The back pain, which petitioner had never before experienced, commenced at about 5:30 in the afternoon. By 9:00 o'clock the next morning, it was so intense that she could not continue working. Moreover, the testimony of the doctor *314 provides an adequate evidentiary basis for concluding that the injury was brought about by the physical exertions connected with the work which petitioner was performing at the time she first began to feel the pain. This evidence, considered in its entirety, is sufficient to satisfy the statutory element of suddenness.
In the case of Meehan v. Crowder, 158 Fla. 361, 28 So. 2d 435, the employee, previously in good health, was exposed for three days in the course of his work, to the poisonous fumes of mercury bichloride. A few months thereafter he was afflicted with nephritis, caused by absorption of the poison. The issue was whether there was an injury by accident. This court held that there was such an accident (which, by statutory definition, includes the element of suddenness[2]), and stated:
If, as the court held, the absorption of fumes over a three day period can be termed a "sudden" event then, it is clear that the injury in the instant case is likewise sufficiently ascertainable in point of time to satisfy the element of suddenness.
The medical evidence is, moreover, consistent with this view. Testifying concerning the rupture of an intervertebral disc, the doctor had this to say:
The concept of something finally giving way, as the doctor expressed it, clearly connotes suddenness. This testimony indicates that there was a "`breaking, herniating, or letting go, with an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in the body'". Such a test for the existence of an accident is stated in 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 38.20 and was recognized by this court in the case of Martin Co. v. Carpenter, Fla., 132 So. 2d 400. See also 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law § 39.10 and Purity Biscuit Co. v. Industrial Commission, 115 Utah 1, 201 P.2d 961. The very word rupture, which means, in effect, a breaking apart, imports a certain element of suddenness. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary.
It appears, therefore, that every essential element of a compensable accident was *315 established by competent substantial evidence, and that the order of the deputy commissioner awarding compensation was correct. Accordingly, the order of the full Industrial Commission should be and it hereby is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the compensation order of the deputy commissioner.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, Acting C.J., DREW and O'CONNELL, JJ., and SCOTT, Circuit Judge, concur.
[1]  At the time of the decision in the Gray case the statutory definition of accident as contained in Section 440.02(19), Florida Statutes, 1951, F.S.A., was "`accident shall mean only an unexpected or unusual event, happening suddenly'". The next session of the Legislature enacted Chapter 28238, Laws of 1953, which redefined "accident" to conform to the holding in the Gray case. The present statutory definition of accident is "an unexpected or unusual event or result, happening suddenly." Section 440.02(19) F.S.A.
[2]  Section 440.02(19), F.S.A.