Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living
Decision Date | 08 August 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 1D11–6293.,1D11–6293. |
Parties | Valerie WALKER, Appellant, v. BROADVIEW ASSISTED LIVING and Chartis Claims, Inc., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Paul M. Anderson of Anderson & Hart, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Christopher J. DuBois and Mary E. Cruickshank of DuBois & Cruickshank, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Claimant argues the Judge of Compensation (JCC) erred in finding she failed to sustain her burden of proof under section 440.02(32), Florida Statutes (2009), regarding “occupational causation” of her left shoulder injury. For the reasons that follow, we agree and reverse the order denying benefits.
Claimant, a receptionist for the Employer, was requested to drop off a package for shipping at UPS and had placed it in her car in anticipation of doing so. When a UPS driver arrived at the Employer's place of business, Claimant left her desk, went to her car, retrieved the package, and gave it to the driver. As she was returning to her desk, she turned a corner in the hallway and, as found by the JCC, “ ‘felt her right foot slip’ from under her.” It is undisputed that Claimant sustained a left rotator cuff tear as a result of her fall and had no history of prior problems with her left shoulder. The JCC found that Claimant had no pre-existing conditions that may have caused the fall. Relying on Duval County School Board v. Golly, 867 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Hernando County v. Dokoupil, 667 So.2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the JCC denied compensability because “claimant's accidental injury on the employer's premises did not arise out of her employment because her work activity at the time of the incident was not the major contributing cause of her fall or injury.”
The JCC's reliance on these cases was error; neither applies to the facts now before us, as both involved situations wherein the claimants had pre-existing conditions which contributed to the accident or the injury. In Golly, the fall itself was caused by a medical condition—seizure and syncopal episode—not related to the workplace. 867 So.2d at 491–92. In Dokoupil, the injury was caused by the claimant's pre-existing osteoporosis. 667 So.2d at 275–76. As such, it was necessary for the Golly and Dokoupil claimants to establish that “the employment itself created the hazard of the risk.” Dokoupil, 667 So.2d at 276.
In the instant case, by contrast, because neither the accident nor the injury was in any way impacted by a pre-existing condition, Claimant's burden to prove occupational causation was that as set out in our recent opinion in Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, 93 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We determined in Caputo that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams
...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 DCA 2012) (foot slip while walking the hallway compensable); Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits , 93 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA......
-
City of Jacksonville v. Ratliff
...medical evidence that "the" or "all" causation factors are non-industrial in order, MCC is extraneous. See Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living , 95 So.3d 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ; Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits , 93 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ; Proctor . It matters not the percentage......
-
Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd.
...the employee was working at the time of his fall was enough to satisfy the statutory MCC requirement); Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living , 95 So. 3d 942, 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that where it was undisputed that the employee was actively engaged in a work-related activity like wa......
-
Soya v. Health First, Inc.
...this court's holdings 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) ], that where an unexplained fall happens while Claimant is "actively engaged" in the duties of employment, and whe......