Beauregard v. Commonwealth Electric

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beauregard v. Commonwealth Electric

440 So. 2d 460, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23555

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 1983

DocketNo. AP-479

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 440 So. 2d 460 (Beauregard v. Commonwealth Electric) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beauregard v. Commonwealth Electric, 440 So. 2d 460, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23555 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

Appellant, 54 years of age, lost all sight in one eye as a result of an industrial acci-' dent. His claims for medical, rehabilitative and wage-loss benefits were apparently honored, or at least not contested in these proceedings before the deputy. He has received permanent impairment benefits of $1,200 in accordance with section 440.-15(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), and he asserts that the benefits provided in that class by the 1981 statute are so paltry as to deny him redress for his injury. Art. I, sec. 21, Fla.Const. As points of comparison he points to pre-1979 benefits of “at least $10,-000” and to common law judgments, for loss of an eye due to another’s negligence, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 5 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts Ann. (Supp.1980). Ap-pellees respond to the effect that legislation like chapter 440 is designed to compensate principally for loss of earning capacity or earnings. 2 LARSON’S WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, § 57.11 (1982); Magic City Bottle and Supply Co. v. Robinson, 116 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla.1959).

We adhere to this court’s decision in Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 419 So.2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for rev. granted, Fla. Supreme Court Case No. 62,721, holding that this law is constitutional.

AFFIRMED.

WIGGINTON, J., concurs. BOOTH, J., dissents without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

Appellant, 54 years of age, lost all sight in one eye as a result of an industrial acci-' dent. His claims for medical, rehabilitative and wage-loss benefits were apparently honored, or at least not contested in these proceedings before the deputy. He has received permanent impairment benefits of $1,200 in accordance with section 440.-15(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), and he asserts that the benefits provided in that class by the 1981 statute are so paltry as to deny him redress for his injury. Art. I, sec. 21, Fla.Const. As points of comparison he points to pre-1979 benefits of “at least $10,-000” and to common law judgments, for loss of an eye due to another’s negligence, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 5 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts Ann. (Supp.1980). Ap-pellees respond to the effect that legislation like chapter 440 is designed to compensate principally for loss of earning capacity or earnings. 2 LARSON’S WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, § 57.11 (1982); Magic City Bottle and Supply Co. v. Robinson, 116 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla.1959).

We adhere to this court’s decision in Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 419 So.2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for rev. granted, Fla. Supreme Court Case No. 62,721, holding that this law is constitutional.

AFFIRMED.

WIGGINTON, J., concurs. BOOTH, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 So. 2d 460, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beauregard-v-commonwealth-electric-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack