City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 1D04-2135.
| Decision Date | 07 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D04-2135.,1D04-2135. |
| Citation | 902 So.2d 942 |
| Parties | CITY OF MARY ESTHER and Florida League of Cities, Inc., Appellants, v. Ron McARTOR, City of Mary Esther and Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Douglas F. Miller of Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse, Pensacola, for Appellants.
Stuart A. Christmas and V. Ross Spano of Christmas & Associates, P.A., Tallahassee, for City of Mary Esther/Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions. Jeffrey J. Lathem, Ft. Walton Beach, and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Ron McArtor, Appellees.
The dispute in this case arose from a determination by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that the City of Mary Esther and the workers' compensation carrier it employed before October 1, 2000, Florida League of Cities, Inc. (collectively E/C 1), was liable for the provision of benefits relating to cardiac complications suffered by the claimant in February 2001, and again in March 2003. The JCC found that the carrier that assumed risk on October 1, 2000, Preferred Governmental Solutions (E/C 2), was not liable because the claimant had received his full salary during his hospitalization and recovery and was, therefore, not disabled. In doing so, the JCC misapprehended the meaning of this court's earlier decisions. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings.
It is of no consequence that the claimant's first heart attack occurred in 1991 while E/C 1 provided workers' compensation coverage. At that time, the claimant was, and continues to be, a city firefighter entitled to the statutory presumption of compensability for coronary artery disease provided by section 112.18(1), Florida Statutes. Coronary artery disease is an occupational illness when suffered by a firefighter meeting the requirements of section 112.18(1). See Sledge v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 497 So.2d 1231, 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Under section 440.151(5), Florida Statutes, the carrier on risk at the time of the last injurious exposure "shall alone be liable" when "compensation is payable for an occupational disease." In this case, the claimant's performance of his firefighting duties constituted the last injurious exposures before his periods of disablement in 2001 and 2003. See Sledge, 497 So.2d at 1232 n. 1. Thus, E/C 2, the carrier on risk during these periods, is liable for current benefits due the claimant. See Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Crittenden, 596 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sunshine Truck Plaza/Camp Oil Co. v. Tucker, 395 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
In finding E/C 2 not liable, the JCC concluded that the claimant had not yet suffered a disability during E/C 2's period of coverage because his condition had not resulted in a "diminution of earnings." The JCC relied upon this court's opinion in Sledge which stated, "Disablement and the commencement of the running of the limitations period occurs when the disease condition `... results in a stoppage or loss of earnings....'" 497 So.2d at 1233 (quoting Sanders v. Fla. State Bd. of Conservation, 5 F.C.R. 193, cert. denied,155 So.2d 551 (Fla.1963)). Based upon this language, the JCC concluded that the claimant was not disabled because the city continued to pay the claimant's salary during his hospitalization and recovery.
The definition of "disability" relied upon by the JCC created no problems under the facts involved in Sledge. In that case, the claimant had not "become actually incapacitated in any manner, due to his heart disease, from performing his duties as a fireman." Id. at 1233. Moreover, the Sledge court did not hold that the claimant was not entitled to any benefits. Instead, this court remanded and directed the deputy commissioner to consider the E/C's other defenses to entitlement. Id.
When applied to the instant case, however, the definition employed by the JCC leads to a result which is inconsistent with the statutory definition of disability and the purpose of the workers' compensation system. The JCC should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friesen v. State of Fla. Highway Patrol
...suffered a series of heart attacks which occurred before and after a change in workers' compensation carriers for the Employer. Id. at 943. Based on the dates of accident, the 2002 definition of "disability" applied. Id. The JCC was tasked with determining liability between carriers. Id. Re......
-
Rocha v. City of Tampa
...his employment.’ ” Bivens v. City of Lakeland, 993 So.2d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 902 So.2d 942, 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), in turn quoting Sledge v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 497 So.2d 1231, 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). Disability “hinges solely on......
-
Orange County Fire Rescue v. Jones
...We reject the employer and carrier's argument that there cannot be more than one date of accident. In fact, in City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 902 So.2d 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), this court acknowledged the possibility of multiple dates of accident in occupational disease cases. In Mary Esth......
-
City of Port Orange v. Sedacca
...claimant's disease or medical condition has not resulted in disablement as the statute defines that term. See City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 902 So.2d 942, 944 (Fla.1st DCA 2005) ("Determining whether a person is disabled for purposes of workers' compensation turns on the person's capacity......