Monette v. Manatee Memorial Hosp.

Decision Date18 April 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-2253,90-2253
Citation16 Fla. L. Weekly 1072,579 So.2d 195
PartiesBetty J. MONETTE, Appellant, v. MANATEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Self-Insured, Appellee. 579 So.2d 195, 16 Fla. L. Week. 1072
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James E. Hutchens, Sarasota, for appellant.

Keith A. Mann of O'Riorden, Mann, Ingram & Dunkle, P.A., Sarasota, for appellee.

JOANOS, Judge.

The claimant in this workers' compensation case appeals an order of the judge of compensation claims denying compensability of the injury incurred resulting from claimant's reaction to an influenza vaccination given to her by the employer at the place of employment. We reverse.

Claimant filed a claim for temporary total disability benefits and medical benefits for a left arm injury she suffered due to a serious reaction to a flu shot. The employer/servicing agent (e/sa) accepted the medical opinion that claimant suffered a reaction to the flu vaccination which immobilized her shoulder, and ultimately developed into adhesive capsulities or frozen shoulder syndrome. However, the e/sa disputed claimant's contention that the flu shot was an employer-sponsored benefit as a regular incident of the claimant's employment which inured to the benefit of the employer.

The record reflects that claimant's work history has been limited to hospital housekeeping. Her duties at Manatee Memorial Hospital included work in the laboratory, the third floor surgery, and the emergency room. Although claimant was not directly involved in patient care, she had some patient contact in the performance of her duties. Claimant testified that she had always worked in hospitals, and regularly took a flu shot for her own protection and for the protection of patients. Prior to the instant incident, claimant had never experienced a reaction to a flu shot.

In September 1988, a memorandum notice was circulated to all departments at Manatee Memorial Hospital, announcing the availability of free flu shots to hospital employees. The memorandum was circulated annually. On September 19, 1988, claimant clocked in at 2:55 p.m., went to the emergency room, and got a flu shot. She experienced an immediate pain reaction, which she reported to the nurse who administered the shot, and to her supervisor. It is undisputed that acceptance of the offered flu shot was voluntary.

The health services manager at Manatee Memorial testified that the flu vaccination program is offered every year, because the Advisory Council for Immunization Practices recommended the flu vaccine for persons in high risk categories, and the hospital has many employees who fit the high risk classification in terms of age and susceptibility to influenza. According to the health services manager, the hospital has many employees on limited incomes and the vaccine is offered free to facilitate their remaining reasonably healthy. Claimant's employee health record shows that claimant has chronic pulmonary disease, placing her within the high risk category of susceptibility to influenza.

The health services manager further testified that the hospital does not have a stated policy in connection with the flu vaccination program. Only eleven per cent of the hospital's employees took the flu shots, and of the forty-eight persons who worked in the housekeeping department, only two persons received the vaccine. The health services manager stated the possibility of flu among hospital employees could not be linked to insurance costs. She further stated that participation in the program by high risk employees could benefit the hospital, since absenteeism could be an issue, but vehemently denied that the purpose of the flu vaccine program was to reduce employee absenteeism. The health services manager also testified that hospital employees were at no greater risk of contracting flu than the general population.

In the order here appealed, the judge of compensation claims concluded that no causal relationship had been shown between claimant's disability from the flu shot and a risk connected with her employment. Consequently, the judge ruled that claimant's injury was not compensable, and dismissed the claim with prejudice.

For an injury to be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, the claimant must show the existence of three elements: (1) an accident, (2) occurring in the course of employment, and (3) arising out of the employment. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. McCook, 355 So.2d 1166, 1167-1168 (Fla.1977). That is, the claimant must show that his injury can be attributed to some event or circumstances connected with his work. Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 64 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla.1952). In Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria, 383 So.2d 623, 628 (Fla.1980), the principle was stated thusly:

We hold that to be compensable, an injury must arise out of employment in the sense of causation and be in the course of employment in the sense of continuity of time, space, and circumstances. This latter factor may be proved by showing that the causative factors occurred during the time and space limits of employment.

Another frequently cited formulation states that an injury arises out of and in the course of employment if it occurs "within...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Bryant v. David Lawrence Mental Health Center
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 1996
    ...must show that his injury can be attributed to some event or circumstances connected with his work." Monette v. Manatee Memorial Hospital, 579 So.2d 195, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). This the claimant has done, by producing evidence that she was squatting to pick up a bag of laundry, performing......
  • Hicks's Case, No. 03-P-1370 (MA 1/18/2005)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 18, 2005
    ...the activity and the employment is particularly strong, as recognized by the reviewing board. See Monette v. Manatee Memorial Hosp., 579 So. 2d 195, 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), quoting from Suniland Toys & Juvenile Furniture, Inc. v. Karns, 148 So. 2d 523, 524 (Fla. 1963) (injury from f......
  • EI Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Faupel
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • January 30, 2004
    ...the compensability of employer provided vaccination, two cases not cited by the IAB or either party are informative. In Monette v. Manatee Memorial Hospital, a housekeeper suffered a severe reaction to a flu vaccination given by her employer, a hospital.68 The hospital had sent a notice to ......
  • Hicks's Case
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • January 18, 2005
    ...the activity and the employment is particularly strong, as recognized by the reviewing board. See Monette v. Manatee Memorial Hosp., 579 So. 2d 195, 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), quoting from Suniland Toys & Juvenile Furniture, Inc. v. Karns, 148 So. 2d 523, 524 (Fla. 1963) (injury from f......
  • 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