Urbina v. Kindred Hosp.-N. Fla.
| Decision Date | 08 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D12–1477.,1D12–1477. |
| Citation | 103 So.3d 244 |
| Parties | Frank URBINA, Appellant, v. KINDRED HOSPITAL–NORTH FLORIDA/Sedgwick CMS, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Daniel J. Glary, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Robert D. Pope and Heather E. Sosnowski of McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Claimant argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in holding that Claimant's accident did not arise out of his employment when Claimant's van struck a utility pole while performing an errand for the Employer. We reverse, because under our recent holding in Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, 93 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), the JCC erred in ruling that Claimant's accident and resulting injuries did not arise out of his employment.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Claimant was asked by his Employer to drive Claimant's van to pick up medical equipment. On the way back to the Employer's facility, Claimant crashed into a telephone pole. Claimant does not recall what happened at the time of the accident, but the parties stipulated that at some point in time on his trip, Claimant “blacked out.” The accident injured Claimant.
When Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) denied the claim, asserting that Claimant's accident did not occur in the course and scope of his employment, that the accident was caused by an idiopathic condition, and that his employment was not the major contributing cause of the accident. The E/C did not, however, submit any evidence in support of its assertion that Claimant had a pre-existing condition. Further, the stipulation that Claimant “blacked out” did not include a stipulation that Claimant had a pre-existing condition, nor did it specify whether Claimant “blacked out” before or after the accident.
The JCC found that Claimant suffered an idiopathic injury and denied compensability under an increased hazard analysis, based on his finding that driving on public roads did not expose Claimant to a greater danger than that which is encountered by any other ordinary person; thus, Claimant failed to prove that his work activities were the major contributing cause of his injuries.
When the JCC entered the final order, this court had not yet issued our decision in Caputo. Under this holding, the JCC incorrectly applied the major contributing cause standard to the facts of this case. Here, in the absence of any evidence to support a finding that Claimant suffered a pre-existing medical condition, Claimant satisfied the major contributing cause requirement by establishing that he was operating a motor vehicle at his Employer's request, an accident occurred, and he suffered injuries as a result of the employment-related accident. Id. at 1098–99 (citing Lanham v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 868 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). Given the absence of a competing medical condition that caused his injuries, Claimant was “not required to present additional evidence going to the issue of whether the work-related accident was the major contributing cause of the injuries.” Id.
Moreover, the JCC erred as a matter of law in ruling that Claimant's injuries did not arise out of his employment by virtue of Claimant's operation of a dangerous instrumentality. This court has held that an accident caused by an idiopathic condition nonetheless “ ‘arises out of’ employment when the employment exposes the claimant to conditions ‘which the claimant would not normally encounter during his non-employment life.’ ” Deturk v. Charlotte County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 642 So.2d 779, 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(citing ...
To continue reading
Request your trial