Lanham v. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Decision Date | 02 February 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 1D03-0257.,1D03-0257. |
Citation | 868 So.2d 561 |
Parties | Lethie LANHAM, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and Florida Department of Insurance Risk Management/WC Claims, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Terry P. Roberts, David G. Sullivan, and Jayson A. Chizick of Anderson, Culliton & Sullivan, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. William W. Blue of Cooper, Byrne, Blue & Schwartz, Perry, for Appellees.
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:
The JCC concluded that because claimant was not on the employer's premises when she was injured, and neither proved that she was performing work, nor that her activity was preparatory or incidental to the performance of her duties, she could not be considered to be within the course and scope of employment at the time she suffered her accidental injuries. In support of his decision, the JCC cited this court's interpretation of section 440.02(32) in Vigliotti v. K-mart Corp., 680 So.2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The statute provides:
"Arising out of" pertains to occupational causation. An accidental injury or death arises out of employment if work performed in the course and scope of employment is the major contributing cause of the injury or death.
The JCC misconstrued the effect of both Vigliotti and section 440.02(32).
Vigliotti explained that in order for an accidental injury to occur, the statute requires the existence of two elements: (1) the work must have been performed in the course and scope of employment, and (2) the work must be the major contributing cause of the accident or injury. Id. at 467-68. As to the first prong, the court decided that the new definition, as incorporated within the 1994 amendments, did not change prior case law interpreting the phrase "in the course and scope of employment," because no modification of substance had been made regarding the related statutory terms "employment," "injury," or "accident." Id. at 468.
The JCC was apparently of the view that as a result of the newly created definition of "arising out of," accidental injuries suffered by an employee off the work premises while taking a short, employerapproved rest break are no longer compensable in that former decisional law that had so held has now been legislatively repealed. As Vigliotti clearly stated, such effect has not occurred. As a consequence, this court's prior decisions upholding the compensability of such injuries remain unimpaired. See Bayfront Med. Ctr. v. Harding, 653 So.2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams
...2012) (fall 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); Citr......
-
Sch. Dist. of Indian River County/Ascension Benefits Ins. v. Cruce
...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.
...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.
...or 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, cl......