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

Williams v Department of Corrections

This August 31, 2012 1DCA opinion reversed Judge Winn's JCC decision. In this case, the timeline is important. In short, the timeline was:   A PFB for PTD benefits was filed on January 25, 2011. The carrier received the PFB on January 28, 2011. On February 16, 2011, the carrier accepted the claimant as PTD (18 days after receipt of the PFB). The very next day the carrier issued a $2,000 advance that had previously been requested by the claimant. Finally on March 10, the carrier issued a check paying the claimant PTD benefits minus the $2,000 cash advance.(the first installment of PTD benefits was made 41 days after the PFB was received by the carrier.) Claimant's counsel filed for attorney fees asserting as grounds that the carrier initially denied the claim but ultimately accepted the claim. The JCC denied fees concluding that the advance paid was a discharge of liability from the date thereof until such advance is recouped by offset against subsequent be...
1 comment
Read more

Hit Products v Sakiba Krivdic

This April 12, 2012 1DCA decision affirmed a JCC decision of Judge Remsnyder. This case shows the relative ease that a claimant can get an initial $2,000 advance. At the JCC level, the claimant was awarded a $2,000 advance because there was competent substantial evidence to support that the Claimant had been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment. The employer/carrier disagreed with the JCC ruling and appealed. The first DCA affirmed the JCC's ruling concerning the advance. The 1DCA held that there was competent substantial evidence to support the JCC’s finding that the Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment,and was eligible for an advance of $2,000 under § 440.20(12)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). FYI Under 440.20(12)(c), there are 3 requisites for an award of an advance of $2,000 or less: 1:  The Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment with no substantial reduction in wages;or 2: The claiman...
Post a Comment
Read more

2 Billion overspent on WC prescription drugs

Here is an interesting article on the cost of prescription medications and the extra moneys that workers compensation insurance companies are spending. I've been harping on this same issue for years. There has to tighter control on the medications that are paid for insurance companies. Click here to see the article
Post a Comment
Read more