Skip to main content

Walker v Broadview

This August 8 1DCA opinion reverses Judge Lazzara's ruling.

The case revolves around a claimant who was requested by her employer to drop off a package for shipping. As she was returning to her desk, the claimant turned a corner in the hallway and "felt her right foot slip from under her' and fell. As a result of the fall, the claimant sustained a left shoulder rotator cuff tear.  The claimant had no prior history of problems with her left shoulder. There was no evidence that the fall was caused by a medical condition. The JCC found that the claimant had no pre-existing conditions that could have caused the fall. However, the JCC still held that the 'claimant's accidental injury on the employer's premises did not arise out of her employment because her work activity at the time of the incident was not the major contributing cause of her fall or injury."
 
The 1DCA held that in the absence of competing causes of the claimant's accident/injuries then the claimant had satisfied the major contributing cause requirement. Since it was not disputed that the claimant was actively engaged in a work related activity, the only question was the major contributing cause issue. The 1DCA opined that since there were no competing caused of the accident and injury, the claimant's work activity was de facto, the major cause.

Click here to see the 1DCA opinion
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CESPEDES V YELLOW TRANSPORTATION

This April 24, 2013 1DCA opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Portuallo's JCC decision. in this case, the claimant argued that the JCC erred by: (1) improperly shifting onto Claimant the burden to prove  the compensable injury was the major contributing cause (MCC) of his disability and need for surgery;  (2) finding  that the medical services at issue did not constitute “emergency care or services,” and that lack of notice to the  Employer/Carrier (E/C)  precluded authorization or payment; and  (3) finding  the opinion testimony from the emergency room physician, Dr. Acebal, is not admissible  pursuant to the “self-help” provisions contained in chapter 440.  The 1DCA reversed on the first two grounds raised and affirmed on the last. As background, the Claimant injured his lower back in 2006.  the Claimant declined surgical treatment, and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more