Slater v. United Parcel Service
| Decision Date | 12 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. BM-279,BM-279 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1215,507 So.2d 1146 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1215 Thomas Richard SLATER, Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ronald H. Watson of Merritt and Watson, Eustis, for appellant.
Richard H. Weisberg of Cooper, Rissman and Weisberg, Orlando, for appellees.
The claimant in this workers' compensation case appeals the final order of the deputy commissioner (dc), which denied him compensation on the grounds that he had failed (1) to provide timely notification to the employer of his injury, (2) to prove by competent, substantial evidence that he had sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and (3) to present sufficient evidence excusing his medical care providers' failure to submit timely medical bills to the employer. We reverse, finding under the facts of this case, that the claimant's untimely notice was excusable, and that the dc incorrectly applied the law in her determination that the claimant did not suffer a compensable injury, and we remand for further proceedings.
In November 1984, the claimant was hired by United Parcel Service to work during the peak delivery season. On December 24, his last day of work, the claimant was extremely busy, delivering approximately one hundred more packages than on a normal work day. The following day, the claimant experienced an aching pain in his left calf which was examined by an osteopath, Dr. Reynolds, in early January 1985. Dr. Reynolds told the claimant that his muscles were stiff from overworking his leg. A pain reliever and bed rest were prescribed. It was not until the end of January, when the claimant returned to Dr. Reynolds for the third time, that the doctor considered that the claimant might have a disc problem. Bed rest, hot packs to the back, and a muscle relaxant and pain reliever were prescribed. Dr. Reynolds also told the claimant that he should have a CAT scan performed.
The claimant on February the fifteenth consulted another osteopath, Dr. Radnothy, who, while prescribing medication and bed rest, also informed the claimant that a CAT scan should be performed. Some time later, when his condition did not improve, the claimant had the CAT scan taken, which revealed that he had suffered a herniated disc. Upon learning of his condition, the claimant immediately reported to his former supervisor on April 23 that he had sustained an industrial injury on December 24, 1984.
Later a claim was filed, which the employer/carrier (e/c) controverted. Following a hearing, the dc found that the claimant's notice of April 23 was not timely reported to the e/c within the statutorily required period of thirty days. See Section 440.185(1), Florida Statutes. Section 440.185(1)(b), however, permits a dc to excuse the failure to give notice if "for some satisfactory reason such notice could not be given." (e.s.) We are in agreement that the record supports claimant's argument that the reason furnished by him was satisfactory.
3 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, § 78.41(a), states that "[t]he time period for notice or claim does not begin to run until the claimant, as a reasonable person, should recognize the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of his injury or disease." (e.s.) This principle was applied in Tomberlin v. City of Miami, 117 So.2d 735, 736 (Fla.1960), in a decision holding that the failure of the claimant to give notice was excusable: "[W]hether the claimant prosecuted his claim with that degree of diligence that an ordinarily prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances ...[?]" See also Escarra v. Winn Dixie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc.
...Lauderdale v. Lindie, 496 So.2d 170. The fact scenario of the instant case is similar to the circumstances in Slater v. United Parcel Service, 507 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 518 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1987). In Slater, the judge denied compensability on grounds that Slater failed......
-
Florida Hosp. v. Williams
...from operating tables to stretchers and "did not think anything of it" until she had a flare-up several months later); Slater v. UPS, 507 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. dismissed, 518 So.2d 1278 (1987)(extremely busy holiday deliveries which initially appeared to produce only aching p......
-
Peters v. Armellini Exp. Lines
...reason such notice could not be given." This court has recently addressed this statutory language in the cases of Slater v. United Parcel Service, 507 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismissed, 518 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1987) and Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA Slater v. Un......
-
Hollingshed v. McCully Const. Co.
...information, I would reverse the order and remand with directions for the deputy to clarify his findings. See Slater v. United Parcel Serv., 507 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 518 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1987); Calleyro v. Mt. Sinai Hosp., 504 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied,......