Ross v. Charlotte Cnty. Pub. Sch., No. 1D12–2064.

CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation100 So.3d 781
Docket NumberNo. 1D12–2064.
Decision Date13 November 2012
PartiesL. Ann ROSS, Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS and Employers Mutual, Inc., Appellees.

100 So.3d 781

L. Ann ROSS, Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS and Employers Mutual, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D12–2064.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.

Nov. 13, 2012.



Rosemary Eure, Alex Lancaster and Amy Dickinson of Lancaster & Eure, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant.

Hinda Klein and Kasey L. Prato of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellees.


PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation appeal, Claimant argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) applied an incorrect test to determine the compensability of Claimant's injury—the “increased hazard” test—and also erred in failing to find

[100 So.3d 782]

that the wall against which Claimant fell was an increased hazard. Because we reverse the order on appeal based upon Claimant's first issue alone, we decline to comment on Claimant's second issue on appeal.

Neither the JCC nor the parties had the benefit of this court's recent decisions in Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, 93 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), and Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living, 95 So.3d 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), two cases that clarify the proper legal analysis to be used where an employee suffers an unexplained fall in the workplace. In Caputo, this court (citing to earlier precedent on the subject) explained:

When the E/C [Employer/Carrier] assert that an injury is the result of a personal risk such as an idiopathic pre-existing condition, they must carry the burden of proving the existence of such a condition.... [I]f the employee has no prior weakness or disease, any exertion connected with employment and causally connected with the injury as a medical fact is adequate to satisfy the legal test of causation.

93 So.3d at 1099 (quoting Bryant v. David Lawrence Mental Health Center, 672 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)).


Here, Claimant testified that her fall occurred when her foot caught on linoleum flooring, while she was walking quickly between classrooms. Claimant also reported that during balance training she underwent after the accident, she was advised that she has a “mild to moderate” vestibular problem—but that this condition did not cause her to fall on the date in question. Although the E/C asserted that Claimant's injuries were due to a pre-existing or idiopathic vestibular disorder that caused Claimant to fall, the E/C failed to introduce any evidence regarding the nature of vestibular disorders, whether Claimant in fact had a vestibular...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, No. 1D17-96
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 5, 2019
    ...be compensable so long as it was not caused by a claimant's idiopathic or preexisting condition.3 See Ross v. Charlotte Cty. Pub. Sch. , 100 So.3d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (fall due to foot caught in linoleum flooring compensable); Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living , 95 So.3d 942 (Fla. 1st......
  • Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1D20-75
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 16, 2022
    ...Law § 38.83 at 7-237 (1980) for the principle before addition of the MCC requirement); see Ross v. Charlotte Cnty. Pub. Schs. , 100 So. 3d 781, 782–83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (applying the same principle after addition of the MCC requirement); Caputo , 93 So. 3d at 1099 (adopting and applying, ......
  • Ackley v. Labor Comm'n, No. 20190806-CA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • April 15, 2021
    ...not been engaged upon an employment errand at the time." Id. (quotation simplified); see also Ross v. Charlotte County Public Schools , 100 So. 3d 781, 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) ("[W]here an unexplained fall happens while [an employee] is actively engaged in the duties of employment, a......
  • Soya v. Health First, Inc., 1D21-59
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 21, 2022
    ...it is error to deny compensability on grounds that the accident "could have happened elsewhere," Ross v. Charlotte Cnty. Pub. Sch. , 100 So. 3d 781, 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), because doing sooverlooks the express language of section 440.10(2), Florida Statutes (201[9]), 337 So.3d 390 providi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, No. 1D17-96
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 5, 2019
    ...be compensable so long as it was not caused by a claimant's idiopathic or preexisting condition.3 See Ross v. Charlotte Cty. Pub. Sch. , 100 So.3d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (fall due to foot caught in linoleum flooring compensable); Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living , 95 So.3d 942 (Fla. 1st......
  • Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1D20-75
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 16, 2022
    ...Law § 38.83 at 7-237 (1980) for the principle before addition of the MCC requirement); see Ross v. Charlotte Cnty. Pub. Schs. , 100 So. 3d 781, 782–83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (applying the same principle after addition of the MCC requirement); Caputo , 93 So. 3d at 1099 (adopting and applying, ......
  • Ackley v. Labor Comm'n, No. 20190806-CA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • April 15, 2021
    ...not been engaged upon an employment errand at the time." Id. (quotation simplified); see also Ross v. Charlotte County Public Schools , 100 So. 3d 781, 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) ("[W]here an unexplained fall happens while [an employee] is actively engaged in the duties of employment, a......
  • Soya v. Health First, Inc., 1D21-59
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 21, 2022
    ...it is error to deny compensability on grounds that the accident "could have happened elsewhere," Ross v. Charlotte Cnty. Pub. Sch. , 100 So. 3d 781, 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), because doing sooverlooks the express language of section 440.10(2), Florida Statutes (201[9]), 337 So.3d 390 providi......
  • 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