Watson v. Melman, Inc.
106 So. 2d 433 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a worker experiences an accidental physical blow, even a minor one, and that physical trauma directly causes a disabling traumatic neurosis, the condition is compensable under workers' compensation law, as it is not considered a 'mental or nervous injury due to fright or excitement only.'
Facts:
- Vennie M. Watson was working at a sewing machine in her employer's place of business, Melman, Inc.
- A fellow employee picked up an 8.5-ounce cardboard spool and tossed it towards Watson, intending it for a trash receptacle.
- The edge of the spool struck Watson immediately behind her ear, leaving only a slight discoloration of the skin.
- Watson had previously experienced the accidental death of her teen-age son by a blow to the head, and had been divorced, requiring her to engage in strenuous labor to support herself and her daughter.
- Due to the spool incident and its 'symbolic significance' combined with her life circumstances, Watson developed a traumatic neurosis.
- As a direct result of this traumatic neurosis, Watson became temporarily and totally disabled, though she incurred no organic disability from the physical blow itself.
Procedural Posture:
- Vennie M. Watson filed a claim for workers' compensation with the Florida Industrial Commission.
- A Deputy Commissioner for the Florida Industrial Commission found in favor of Watson, allowing her claim for a traumatic neurosis and temporary total disability resulting from an industrial accident.
- The Florida Industrial Commission (Full Commission) set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and denied Watson's claim, concluding that fright alone did not constitute an injury by accident and that she suffered no organic disability.
- Vennie M. Watson, as petitioner, sought certiorari review from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, challenging the full commission's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a traumatic neurosis resulting from an accidental physical blow compensable under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act, even if the blow itself does not cause organic disability, or is it barred as a mental or nervous injury due to fright or excitement only?
Opinions:
Majority - Pearson, Judge
Yes, a traumatic neurosis resulting from an accidental physical blow is compensable under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act, even if the blow itself does not cause organic disability, provided there is a direct causal link. The court reversed the full commission's order, finding that the commission misapplied Section 440.02(19), Fla. Stat., F.S.A. This section states that a 'mental or nervous injury due to fright or excitement only' is not compensable. However, the present case involved an actual physical blow, which constitutes an 'injury' even if it did not cause immediate organic disability. The court cited `Superior Mill Work v. Gabel`, which established that when a physical accident or trauma leads to a disabling neurosis, the full disability is compensable, and there must be an actual physical injury to predicate compensation for a neurosis. The court noted that a pre-existing neurotic tendency does not lessen the compensability of an injury that precipitates a disabling neurosis. The Deputy Commissioner, as the trier of fact, found that there was a blow and a resulting traumatic neurosis, which by definition includes an injury. This finding was supported by competent, substantial evidence from doctors' testimony. The full commission erred by concluding there was no 'injury' and that fright alone was the cause, thereby overriding the Deputy Commissioner's factual findings.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation of 'injury by accident' within workers' compensation statutes, particularly regarding mental or nervous conditions. It establishes a critical distinction between purely psychological injuries arising from 'fright or excitement only' (non-compensable) and those triggered by a physical trauma, however minor (compensable). The decision underscores the importance of the initial fact-finder's (Deputy Commissioner's) conclusions regarding the existence of a physical injury and its causal link to the subsequent psychological disability, preventing appellate bodies from re-weighing evidence to dismiss claims. This interpretation broadens the scope of compensable injuries to include psychological conditions that are genuinely precipitated by a physical event, even if that event doesn't leave significant physical marks.
