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

De la Cruz v Able Body Temporary Staffing

This March 6, 2012 1DCA opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part the JCC decision of Judge Sojourner. In this case, the claimant filed several petitions for benefits after injuring his right knee and left wrist in a workplace fall.  Among other things, Claimant sought authorization for a total knee replacement and TPD benefits related to the wrist injury that the Employer/Carrier had accepted as compensable.  The 1DCA held that the  JCC correctly held that the workplace accident was not the major contributing cause of Claimant’s need for knee surgery, and therefore, denied all related claims. The 1DCA affirmed that portion of the order. However, the 1DCA opined that the JCC did not rule on the TPD claim for the claimant's compensable wrist injury.  The 1DCA held that "Failure to rule on a fully tried issue is reversible error". To support their position, the 1 DCA cited the 1997 Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. Case.  The 1DCA...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is coronavirus compensable under WC?

According to the NCCI, The answer to that question is maybe. While WC laws provide compensation for “occupational diseases” that arise out of and in the course of employment, many state statutes exclude “ordinary diseases of life” (e.g., the common cold or flu). There are occupational groups that arguably would have a higher probability for exposure such as healthcare workers. However, even in those cases, there may be uncertainty as to whether the disease is compensable. Would time away from work during recovery be considered “temporary disability” or is it just normal “sick time”?    https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/Insights-COVID19-WorkersComp.aspx
Post a Comment
Read more

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