Skip to main content

Williams v Tarmac America

This August 10, 2012 opinion reverses Judge Rosen's ruling.

The 1DCA held that the JCC erred in making findings on matters outside of the issues framed for the hearing. The JCC had denied a claim for PTD benefits basd on the grounds that the claimant had not proven the existance of a back injury due to rpetitive trauma with a date of accident of January 26, 2004.

The PFB filed by the claimant never raised the issue of compensability. In this case, the claimant had a prior accident while working for the same employer. That case never resolved. On March 10, 2004, the claimant resigned from the employer. However, it was not until 2010 that the claimant filed a PFB for PTD benefits using March 10, 2004 as the start date for the PTD benefits. The PFB mentioned a repitive trauma accident. He used January 26, 2004 as the date of accident.

The PFB assumed that the accident was accepted as compensable. The JCC ruled that the claimant did not establish a repetitve trauma to his back.

On appeal, the claimant raised the fact that they never raised the claim of compensability. The EC never addressed challenged by the Employer/Carrier. The provision of medical care precluded any challenge to the compensability of the case. The 1DCA agreed that the JCC stepped outside of its boundaries and ruled upon an issue that was not before the JCC court.

 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