City of Miami v. Tomberlin
| Decision Date | 29 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BI-362,BI-362 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1640 CITY OF MIAMI, Appellant, v. John TOMBERLIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lucia A. Dougherty, City Atty., Gisela Cardonne, Deputy City Atty. for the City of Miami, for appellant.
Peter S. Schwedock of Pelzner, Schwedock, Finkelstein & Klausner, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
Appellant, City of Miami, appeals the deputy commissioner's order finding that appellee is entitled to workers' compensation medical benefits as the result of his hearing loss and pulmonary condition. We affirm.
Appellee has been employed as a police officer with the City of Miami since January 1956. In his workers' compensation claim, he sought medical benefits for the treatment of two different ailments--a hearing loss and a pulmonary condition. In regard to the hearing loss, he testified that his hearing problem has become gradually worse over a period of many years as the result of downtown noises to which he is exposed during his eight-hour shift on the street and also due to firing range noise.
Dr. Pullen, an otolaryngologist, initially treated appellee for his hearing problems in September 1983. He determined that appellee has a progressive high frequency hearing loss which results in his being unable to hear properly in noisy situations. He found that appellee's hearing loss is related to his exposure to a noisy environment. Other evidence was presented to show that, especially in his earlier years as a police officer, appellee was exposed to greater than acceptable levels of noise during firing range routines and that the noise level in the downtown Miami area where appellee works regular duty reaches greater than the acceptable level of decibels at certain times. Therefore, competent substantial evidence in the record supports the deputy commissioner's finding that due to his on-the-job exposure to noise, appellee suffers a progressive hearing loss and therefore treatment for that loss is compensable.
As to the pulmonary condition, appellee testified that he has noticed a shortness of breath during the last several years. Dr. Lerner, his treating physician for his lung condition, was of the opinion that, although some people who are not exposed to toxins develop the same condition from which appellee suffers, a great probability exists that appellee's prolonged exposure to a higher than normal level of air pollutants in the downtown area of Miami has affected appellee's lung function and caused his pulmonary condition. Other evidence showed that the downtown area of Miami has, at times, contained pollutants that were higher than EPA standards.
The deputy commissioner concluded that appellee has sustained "occupational diseases," both hearing and pulmonary, as the result of "ongoing exposures...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Glumb, 87-106
...and (3) that he has been subject to a hazard greater than that to which the general public is exposed. City of Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Dean Jaye Construction v. Johnson, 486 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 494 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1986); Brevard County Men......
-
Troche v. Geico
...in the case of repetitive trauma, the statute of limitations begins on the last date of exposure to the trauma); City of Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Here, Claimant's filing of a previous workers' compensation claim for the same injury did not change the fact that ......
-
Barrett v. Douglas Fertilizer and Chemical, 97-1565
...may result from the cumulative effect of multiple exposures or traumas, which constitute repeated accidents); City of Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that although claimant was aware of lung and hearing injuries caused by exposure to noise and pollution at wor......
-
Sewell v. J.C. Penney, 89-1308
...workplace exposure to that condition is materially in excess of that undergone by the general public. See, e.g., City of Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ("hazard" prong met by showing of regular exposure to common but excessive downtown noise and air pollution). Here, ......