Skip to main content

Williams V City of Orlando


This June 13, 2012 1DCA reversed Judge Condry's JCC decision. The JCC denied compensability of the claimant's hypertension on the ground she failed to establish eligibility to rely on the statutory presumption occupational causation available via section 112.18.
The claimant met three of the four requirements of section 112.18:
1   She was a police officer,
2   Her condition resulted in disability,
3   She successfully passed a physical examination upon entering into service.
The JCC found that the claimant's essential hypertension did not meet the 4th requirement which indicates that the condition itself be one of those listed in section 112.18: "tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension.
The claimant was diagnosed with essential hypertension. She introduced unrefuted medical opinion testimony that essential hypertension was the same thing and the same condition as arterial hypertension.
In Bivens v. City of Lakeland, 993 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing City of Miami v. Thomas, 657 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)), the 1DCA had previously held that the 112.18 hypertension must be "arterial or cardiovascular."
Click here to see the 1DCA decision

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arlotta v city of West Palm Beach

A March 26, 2012 1DCA decision that reversed JCC D'Ambrosio. This case continues to show the importance that the 1DCA is putting on Expert Medical Advisors (EMA). Judges of Compensation Claims have less and less control In a case where there are conflicting medical opinions. In this case, there was a conflicting medical opinion and Judge of Compensation Claims appointed an EMA to address “the issues of 1) whether the Claimant has gynecomastia, 2) the cause of the gynecomastia, and 3) what treatment is recommended.” However, before the claimant was seen by the EMA physician, the claimant had an unauthorized surgery. The claimant wanted to give copies of the unauthorized medical records to the EMA. The Employer/Carrier filed a motion to dismiss the Claimant's claims arguing that Claimant’s unilateral decision to undergo surgery prevented the EMA from answering the questions put to him and that the E/C had been prejudiced in its ability to defend the claims. The JCC fou...
1 comment
Read more

Medicare and Workers Compensation

Medicare is like the mob. They’re protecting their turf.  Some have chosen not to pay heed to their warnings. They have given us warnings. Non compliance is everywhere. Medicare ain’t playing.  It’s mandatory. Know the facts, be proactive-start compliance efforts early. #LSlaw
Post a Comment
Read more