Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Schmitt, 91-135
| Decision Date | 29 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-135,91-135 |
| Citation | 597 So.2d 938 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D1141 AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joyce SCHMITT and Seibels Bruce, Appellees. |
J. Brian Hurt of De Ciccio & Broussard, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
R.W. Simmermon, Orlando and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for appellee Joyce Schmitt.
George A. Helm, III and B.C. Pyle, Orlando, for appellee Seibels Bruce.
Aetna Life & Casualty Company (Aetna) appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) determining that since claimant's last exposure to the repeated trauma which caused her carpal tunnel syndrome occurred while Aetna was at risk, Aetna was required to provide claimant remedial treatment. We affirm, but for the alternate reason apparent in the record, that Aetna should be responsible because Aetna was at risk when claimant suffered her last repeated accident which contributed to her condition and necessitated remedial treatment.
All the parties agree that claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to the repetitive trauma she suffered to her hands, wrists, and arms, due to her waitressing job. The dispute in this case centers around which carrier should be responsible for payment of benefits: appellee, Seibels Bruce, which provided coverage for the employer through 1989, or appellant, Aetna, which began providing coverage January 1, 1990.
Claimant's symptoms, pain and numbness in her hands, appeared in the middle of 1988 and progressively worsened. On January 12, 1990, she was examined by Dr. Armand Zilioli, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed her condition as carpal tunnel syndrome, causally related to her work. However, at this point, claimant's condition had not resulted in muscle atrophy, and he opined that she could continue to work. By May 1990, claimant's condition had worsened. She had bilateral muscle atrophy and Dr. Zilioli recommended surgery.
Dr. Zilioli explained that it takes a prolonged period of time to develop carpal tunnel syndrome, and he was unwilling to state within a reasonable medical probability when claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome became symptomatic to the point it would require surgery. He refused to testify within a reasonable medical probability that as of December 31, 1989, the claimant had bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.
At the time of the final hearing on November 6, 1990, claimant had stopped working five days a week and was only working three days a week because of the pain and discomfort in her hands. She testified that her condition was worse at the time of the hearing than it was when she first saw Dr. Zilioli, and that it was getting progressively worse.
Noting the similarity between the repeated trauma and occupational disease theories of recovery in workers' compensation law, the JCC determined that the last injurious exposure rule set forth in section 440.151(5), Florida Statutes (1989) 1 should be applicable. Since Aetna was at risk when claimant was last exposed to work-related conditions causing injury, the JCC ruled that Aetna should provide her the necessary remedial treatment.
On appeal, Aetna argues that the JCC should not have relied upon the last injurious exposure rule to determine liability between the carriers. Aetna argues that section 440.151, Florida Statutes (1989),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Associated Industries Ins. Co., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Company-Chubb Group
...contention that carpal tunnel syndrome should not be classified as a "disease." As the court made clear in Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Schmitt, 597 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), citing Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin Chu, 597 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), recovery by one workers' compensa......
-
City of Orlando v. Lemay, 92-3459
...do not govern date of accident determinations in repeated trauma and multiple exposure cases. See also Aetna Life and Casualty v. Schmitt, 597 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). As Tokyo House explains, repeated trauma and multiple exposure claims under Festa involve injuries which ensue from r......
-
Malt Bros. I, Ltd. v. State Farm Ins. Co.
...is a direct result of the claimant's employment with Malt Brothers. Further, under the principles of Aetna Life & Casualty v. Schmitt, 597 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), it was the claimant's work at Malt Brothers which caused her repeated trauma. The repetitive trauma resulted from recurri......
-
Roz Fischer's Beauty Unlimited v. Mathis
...contributed to her condition and necessitated remedial treatment for the Claimant's conditions," citing Aetna Life and Casualty Co. v. Schmitt, 597 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The JCC ordered Roz Fisher's and National Surety to: (1) reimburse Travelers for medical and indemnity benefits ......