Mangold v. Rainforest Golf Sports Center, 95-666

• Decision Date: 11 June 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-666,95-666
• Citation: 675 So.2d 639
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1362 Carol MANGOLD, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Mangold and Individually as Claimant, Appellant, v. RAINFOREST GOLF SPORTS CENTER and Executive Risk Consultants, Inc., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 639

675 So.2d 639

21 Fla. L. Weekly D1362

Carol MANGOLD, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Mangold and Individually as Claimant, Appellant, v. RAINFOREST GOLF SPORTS CENTER and Executive Risk Consultants, Inc., Appellees.

No. 95-666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

June 11, 1996.

Keith R. Pallo of Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Marjorie Gadarian Graham, Palm Beach Gardens, for Appellant.

Randall T. Porcher of Rigell & Leal, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellees.

SHIVERS, Senior Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing and certification of question of great public importance. Appellee has filed a motion for clarification. We deny Appellant's motions for rehearing and certification. We grant Appellee's motion for clarification and substitute this revised opinion for the opinion filed February 13, 1996.

Carol Mangold, the Appellant, seeks review of a workers' compensation order finding that her husband's heart attack following his work-related injury was not compensable under section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). We affirm.

William Mangold (Mangold) was injured in the course and scope of his employment on January 3, 1994 when a go-cart struck and pinned his right leg. Mangold, however, did not receive medical treatment for two weeks following the accident as he was unable to obtain authorization from Rainforest Golf Sports Center, the employer, and Executive Risk Consultants, Inc., the carrier (together, the E/C). The employer continued to refuse authorization of any treatment, to file a notice of injury, or to report the claim to the carrier. As a result of his difficulties in seeking authorized treatment, Mangold suffered emotional stress and financial hardship.

On February 16, 1994, suffering from chest pain, Mangold sought treatment from Dr. Patel, a cardiologist. Fifty-two years of age at the time, Mangold had a history of hypertension, arteriosclerotic heart disease, congestive heart failure, hypercholesterolemia and a family history of myocardial infarction. Dr. Patel admitted Mangold into the hospital, but on February 17, 1994, Mangold suffered a massive, fatal heart attack.

The Appellant, Mangold's spouse, as personal representative, sought workers' compensation benefits for the work-related injury and the subsequent heart attack and death. The E/C controverted both claims on the basis that the injury and the heart attack did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The parties stipulated as to the compensability of the work-related injury to Mangold's leg. The only matter before the JCC, at the final hearing, was the compensability of Mangold's heart attack and resulting death. At the final hearing, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied compensation for the heart attack and resulting death. The JCC determined that the amendments to chapter 440 that went into effect on January 1, 1994 pursuant to chapter 93-415, Laws of Florida, established a new evidentiary standard for subsequent injuries and aggravation of pre-existing conditions. On that basis, the JCC concluded that the claimant failed to prove that the work-related injury was the major contributing cause of the heart attack. Rather, the JCC concluded that the stress resulting from the workplace injury was but one of many factors contributing to the heart attack.

The Appellant argues that the JCC, in analyzing this claim, applied the wrong legal standard. The Appellant maintains that the appropriate standard is whether the work-related injury was a contributing cause, rather than the major contributing cause because the 1993 amendments merely codified the case law interpreting the statute in effect prior to January 1, 1994, the effective date of those amendments. The plain language of the amended act and case law interpreting chapter 440 prior to the 1993 amendments belie the Appellant's contention.

Section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994) provides in part:

The employer shall pay compensation or furnish benefits required by this chapter if the employee suffers an accidental injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment. The injury, its occupational cause, and any resulting manifestations or disability shall be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and by objective medical findings. Mental or nervous injuries occurring as a manifestation of an injury compensable under this section shall be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.

(a) This chapter does not require any compensation or benefits for any subsequent injury the...