Lafave v. Bay Consol. Distributors

Decision Date30 June 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-2422,88-2422
Citation14 Fla. L. Weekly 1577,546 So.2d 78
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 1577 Robert A. LAFAVE, Appellant, v. BAY CONSOLIDATED DISTRIBUTORS, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., and Kemper Insurance Co., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

John H. Thompson, IV, of Earle & Thompson, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Anthony J. Gonzalez, Jr., Law Offices of Luis G. Figueroa, Tampa, for appellees Bay Consolidated Fireman's Fund.

Ted R. Manry, III, and James C. Delesie, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellees Bay Consol. and Kemper Ins. Co.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Claimant seeks review of a workers' compensation order by which a claim for benefits was denied. We find that the claim for benefits based upon a psychiatric injury was properly denied, as claimant's psychiatric problems were not shown to be related to any physical impact or trauma resulting from the employment. But the claim for benefits based upon a back injury should not have been denied based upon the statute of limitations, as the claim was made within two years after the last treatment furnished by the employer on account of the back injury. We therefore reverse the denial of benefits for claimant's back injury, and otherwise affirm the order appealed.

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming that he sustained multiple back injuries and a subsequent psychiatric condition while working for the employer. A hearing was held and the parties presented evidence before the deputy commissioner who then determined that claimant had sustained a compensable back injury. The deputy found that this injury occurred in 1981, and that compensation was last paid in 1982. Determining that claimant had not shown any other back injury, the deputy found the 1986 claim as to the 1981 back injury barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The deputy also found that claimant's psychiatric problems, which were unrelated to the back injury, did not involve any physical trauma and were not compensable. The deputy thus denied the claim in its entirety.

The evidence presented below indicates that claimant's psychiatric condition involves both personal problems and the effects of job stress, including long work hours. Testimony suggests that claimant's routine consumption of alcohol while at work in the employer's liquor warehouse adversely affected his psychiatric situation. Testimony also suggests that such consumption was sanctioned by the employer, who furnished the alcohol and approved its use in certain situations as an inducement to the workers. The parties do not assert and we do not address any contention that claimant's alcohol consumption constitutes physical impact or trauma, and there was accordingly no physical impact or trauma from the employment shown to have contributed to claimant's psychiatric condition.

It is well-established that the occurrence of a job related mental injury or neurosis, in the absence of physical impact or trauma, does not constitute an industrial accident, and is not a compensable injury. See e.g., Superior Millwork v. Gabel, 89 So.2d 794 (Fla.1956); Polk Nursery Co. Inc. v. Riley, 433 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Williams v. Hillsborough County School Board, 389 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Section 440.02(1), Florida Statutes, expressly provides that "mental or nervous injury due to fright or excitement only ... shall be deemed not to be an injury by accident arising out of the employment." The deputy properly applied this statute, and the case law, in finding that claimant's psychiatric condition is not compensable.

Massie v. University of Florida, 463 So.2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied 472 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1985), does not mandate a contrary ruling. Massie applied Festa v. Teleflex Inc., 382 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), rev. denied 388 So.2d 1119 (Fla.1980), to a claim for benefits for multiple sclerosis allegedly aggravated by job stress. Festa approved prolonged deleterious...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ramada Inn Surfside v. Swanson, 89-1776
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 18, 1990
    ...trauma at the workplace. Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc., 552 So.2d 1099 (Fla.1989); LaFave v. Bay Consolidated Distributors, Inc., 546 So.2d 78, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Because we find the record supports the judge's finding that Dr. Handel concluded that claimant's emotio......
  • Regency Elec. Co. v. Honrath
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1996
    ...he changed his position in any way based upon his understanding that he was covered under the Florida system. Lafave v. Bay Consol. Distribs., 546 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The erroneous payment of Florida benefits cannot create workers' compensation coverage that does not otherwise exi......
  • Vaughn v. Moyle Petroleum Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 1992
    ...counseling. Accordingly, we remand this cause to the JCC to consider the issue of estoppel. 1 See, e.g., LaFave v. Bay Consolidated Distributors, 546 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Irigoyen v. Aircraft Services, Inc., 544 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Chemco Electric Supply, Inc. v. Gonzal......
  • Bell v. Commercial Carriers, 91-2639
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 18, 1992
    ...related to a compensable injury. Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 490 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Fla.1986). See also LaFave v. Bay Consolidated Distributors, 546 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The medical testimony in this case indicates that the care rendered to Bell after the June 1989 injury was in fa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT