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

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