Lanham v. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, No. 1D03-0257.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | ERVIN, J. |
| Citation | 868 So.2d 561 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D03-0257. |
| Parties | Lethie LANHAM, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and Florida Department of Insurance Risk Management/WC Claims, Appellees. |
868 So.2d 561
Lethie LANHAM, Appellant,v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and Florida Department of Insurance Risk Management/WC Claims, Appellees
No. 1D03-0257.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
February 2, 2004.
Rehearing Denied March 31, 2004.
Terry P. Roberts, David G. Sullivan, and Jayson A. Chizick of Anderson, Culliton & Sullivan, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
ERVIN, J.
This is an appeal from a final workers' compensation order denying compensability of an accident occurring after the effective date of section 440.02(32), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994),1 defining the term "arising out of," for the reason that the claimant's accident did not satisfy such definition. Because the decision below turns on an interpretation of law, our review standard is de novo. We conclude that the construction by the judge of compensation claims (JCC) is erroneous, requiring reversal.
Claimant, Lethie Lanham, while employed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), tripped and fell on a sidewalk about a quarter of a mile from her office during a work break on April 4, 2000, injuring her right hip, wrist, and hand. The sidewalk circles the complex where DEP is located and was not on DEP premises. In reaching his decision, the JCC recited the following stipulated facts:
1. Employee was on break at the time of her injury.
2. Employee was not on the employer's premises at the time of her injury.
3. Employee was not performing any task or errand for the employer at the time of her injury.
4. At the time of her injury, employee was still subject to the control of employer to the extent that employee's supervisor could have called her back to work before finishing her break.
5. Employer provided no limitations on where employee went during her breaks provided that employee could return to work within 15 minutes.
6. Employee was paid for the time she spent on break.
7. Employees get two 15-minute breaks each day, one in the morning, and a second break after lunch. Employees are not required to use a time clock to time their breaks. They are on the honor system, and trusted to return to work on time.
8. Employer provided no limitations on the types of activities employee engaged in during her breaks provided that employee could return to work within 15 minutes.
The JCC concluded that because claimant was not on the employer's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, No. 1D17-96
...with resulting head injury such that claimant did not know how the accident occurred compensable); Lanham v. Dep't. of Envtl. Prot. , 868 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (trip and fall on a sidewalk a quarter of mile from work while taking a walk on a paid break compensable); Citrus Mem'l. Ho......
-
Sch. Dist. of Indian River County/Ascension Benefits Ins. v. Cruce, No. 1D17-3342
...of a statute, it is a question of law subject to the de novo standard of appellate review. See, e.g. , Lanham v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot ., 868 So. 2d 561, 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Otherwise, where the question is whether clear and convincing evidence was presented to support the JCC's holding......
-
Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1D20-75
...did not intend to alter the judicial construction of the term "in the course and scope of employment"); Lanham v. Dep't of Env't Prot. , 868 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (explaining that because the statutory amendment had no effect on "course and scope" analysis, injuries occurring ......
-
Soya v. Health First, Inc., 1D21-59
...slipped on ), other than being obligated to be present on the worksite at the time of the accident. See Lanham v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 868 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("In that the record discloses there was only one cause of claimant's injuries, rather than competing causes, claim......
-
Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, No. 1D17-96
...with resulting head injury such that claimant did not know how the accident occurred compensable); Lanham v. Dep't. of Envtl. Prot. , 868 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (trip and fall on a sidewalk a quarter of mile from work while taking a walk on a paid break compensable); Citrus Mem'l. Ho......
-
Sch. Dist. of Indian River County/Ascension Benefits Ins. v. Cruce, No. 1D17-3342
...of a statute, it is a question of law subject to the de novo standard of appellate review. See, e.g. , Lanham v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot ., 868 So. 2d 561, 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Otherwise, where the question is whether clear and convincing evidence was presented to support the JCC's holding......
-
Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1D20-75
...did not intend to alter the judicial construction of the term "in the course and scope of employment"); Lanham v. Dep't of Env't Prot. , 868 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (explaining that because the statutory amendment had no effect on "course and scope" analysis, injuries occurring ......
-
Soya v. Health First, Inc., 1D21-59
...slipped on ), other than being obligated to be present on the worksite at the time of the accident. See Lanham v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 868 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("In that the record discloses there was only one cause of claimant's injuries, rather than competing causes, claim......