City of Tampa v. Tingler, VV-31
| Decision Date | 06 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. VV-31,VV-31 |
| Citation | 397 So.2d 315 |
| Parties | CITY OF TAMPA, Appellant, v. David L. TINGLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Sheehan, Tampa, for appellant.
Joseph L. Thury, Tampa, for appellee.
The self-insured employer appeals a workers' compensation order and contends, among other issues, that the deputy should have denied the claim for untimely notice of injury. We find no reversible error and affirm the order appealed.
Claimant, a city police officer, was required to intercede in a domestic dispute; a physical struggle ensued and claimant's arm was severely twisted. Although claimant soon recovered from this physical trauma, he thereafter developed a disabling psychophysiological reaction.
Section 440.185(1), Florida Statutes, requires that an employer be given notice, within 30 days, that an injury has resulted from an industrial accident. See Crossroads Villa v. Hutchins, IRC Order 2-3237 (Sept. 27, 1977), cert. dismissed 353 So.2d 676 (Fla.1977). But the time for notice does not begin to run until the claimant is aware of such facts as would indicate that the injury is causally related to the industrial accident. Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So.2d 483 (Fla.1961). In the present case the claimant did not give formal notice of the relation between his psychophysiological reaction and the employment altercation until ten months after the employment incident. However, the record does not conclusively establish that claimant was aware of such causal relation before this time. We therefore conclude that the present case falls within the Escarra rule and that notice of injury was timely given. We also note that, immediately after the employment altercation, claimant filed a police report which detailed the occurrences of the employment altercation and noted the battery which occurred during the physical struggle.
The order appealed is affirmed.
I would reverse the deputy's order.
The City appeals a workers' compensation order awarding Tingler permanent partial disability benefits, contending the deputy erred in finding that Tingler timely filed notice of his injury.
On 26 August 1978, as part of his employment duties as a police officer, Tingler was required to intercede in a domestic dispute. During the physical struggle, his arm was twisted.
Prior to this employment incident, Tingler was getting minor headaches toward the end of his work shift, and having trouble sleeping, however, he was able to continue working. After this employment incident, he experienced back spasms, headaches, cramps, trouble sleeping, muscle spasms in his arms, legs, and neck, a sore throat, rectal bleeding, and a sweat rash. He eventually obtained medical treatment and his condition was diagnosed as a chronic anxiety reaction resulting from the employment incident, or a psychophysiological reaction with musculoskeletal difficulties and severe anxiety overlay.
Although Tingler reported the employment altercation in the police report, he did not indicate that he sustained any injury and he did not file a notice of injury until June of 1979.
Section 440.185(1), Florida Statutes (1978), requires notice of injury within 30 days of its occurrence. Tingler did not give notice of his injury until ten months after its occurrence. Although a report of the employment incident was filed, the report did not indicate that Tingler sustained any injury, thus, does not constitute a notice of injury within the meaning of Chapter 440. Crossroads Villa v. Hutchins, IRC Order 2-3237 (Sept. 27, 1977), cert. dismissed 353 So.2d 676 (Fla.1977).
In Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So.2d 483 (Fla.1961), it was indicated that the time for notice does not begin to run until the claimant, as a reasonable person, should recognize the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of the injury. The court further explained that recognition of the injury's probable compensable character contemplates knowledge of facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Holmes Beach v. Grace
...490 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Prahl Brothers, Inc. v. Phillips, 429 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); and City of Tampa v. Tingler, 397 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). City of Holmes Beach v. Grace, 570 So.2d at Where there has been a physical accident or trauma and the claimant's disabili......
-
W.W. Trucking Co. v. Boyd
...to the employer/carrier at risk at the time. Overholser Construction v. Porter, 173 So.2d 697 (Fla.1964); Cf., City of Tampa v. Tingler, 397 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, we hold that the deputy commissioner erred in finding Carriers entitled to reimbursement from RTC for medical ......
-
Herb's Exxon v. Whatmough
...735 (Fla.1960). 1 See also Riddle v. Brevard County Board of Public Instruction, 286 So.2d 557 (Fla.1973); and City of Tampa v. Tingler, 397 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Although Escarra was concerned with the notice of injury, the supreme court therein and in Riddle cited to Larson's Wor......
-
Amoco Container Co. v. Aviles
...conclusion. See Oolite Concrete Co. v. Carver, 145 So.2d 733 (Fla.1962); Prahl Brothers, Inc. v. Phillips, supra; City of Tampa v. Tingler, 397 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Watson v. Melman, Inc., 106 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958), cert. denied, 111 So.2d 40 I would affirm. ...