DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, APPELLANT,
v.
SHANNON E. PUTNAM AND STATE RETIREMENT COMMISSION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Division of Retirement appealed an administrative order awarding in-line-of-duty disability benefits to a school teacher who suffered a stroke after years of workplace stress and a physical assault by students. The court affirmed, holding that a compensably disabling illness under the relevant statute need not involve sudden onset or unusual exertion, unlike workers' compensation injury claims.
The court affirmed the Retirement Commission's award, holding that a compensably disabling illness arising out of and in the actual performance of employment duties qualifies for in-line-of-duty disability benefits. Unlike compensable injuries in workers' compensation cases, a qualifying illness need not occur suddenly or result from unusual strain not routine to the employee's work.
[1] An illness arising out of and in the actual performance of employment duties qualifies for in-line-of-duty disability benefits.
[2] A compensably disabling illness, unlike a compensable injury, need not suddenly occur or manifest itself during the performance of employment duties.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 121.021(13), Florida Statutes (1979) embraces either an injury or an illness arising out of and in the actual performance of the duties of one's employment.”
Establishes the governing statutory standard that applies to both injuries and illnesses in the in-line-of-duty disability benefits context.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShannon Putnam was a school teacher at John E. Ford Career Center, a school for at-risk students with histories of poor grades, truancy, and delinquen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
The Division of Retirement appeals from a Retirement Commission order awarding in-line-of-duty disability benefits to a 61-year-old school teacher who suffered a stroke. Substantial competent evidence shows that Putnam’s hypertension was causally related to the extraordinary stress of his job as a teacher for eight years at the John E. Ford Career Center in Duval County, a school for students having a history of poor grades, truancy, and juvenile delinquency, and who were verbally and physically abusive to Putnam. We affirm the order of the Division of Retirement, recognizing as we do that Section 121.021(13), Florida Statutes (1979) embraces either an injury or an illness arising out of and in the actual performance of the duties of one’s employment.
The Division of Retirement agrees that Putnam is entirely prevented by a medically determinable physical impairment from rendering further useful service in his employment. His complete disability developed after a January 1977 classroom incident in which Putnam’s head was pushed against the wall and his right knee was injured by students who were resisting his efforts to escort them to the dean’s office. Following knee surgery, Putnam attempted to return to his classroom duties, using a cane or crutch, and he was further abused, verbally and physically, by students. Putnam’s emotional stress then increased until he left school one day dizzy and weak. He then suffered a stroke at home. Expert medical testimony confirms the causal relationship between the stroke and the extraordinary injury and tensions Putnam encountered at work.
The substantial causal relationship between Putnam’s job environment and activity and his illness is sufficient to qualify him for in-line-of-duty disability benefits. A compensably disabling illness, in contrast to injury, need not suddenly occur or manifest itself in the performance of employment duties. Contrast Walker v. Division of Retirement, 360 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. den., 368 So. 2d 1375 (Fla.1979). And in contrast to the compensable injury occurring by “accident” in workers’ compensation parlance, a compensably disabling illness need not be precipitated by unusual strain or exertion not routine to the emT ployee’s accustomed work. Contrast Victor Wine & Liquor, Inc. v. Beasley, 141 So. 2d 581 (Fla.1962); Richard E. Mosca & Co., Inc. v. Mosca, 362 So. 2d 1340 (Fla.1978). Those limitations on compensable injuries in workers’ compensation cases are not incorporated in Section 121.021(13), governing in-line-of-duty disability benefits.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, J., and WOODIE A. LILES, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. Dep't of Admin. Div. of Ret., 481 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…362 So. 2d 1340 (Fla.1978). We have consistently refused to apply this standard to retirement disability benefit cases under Section 121.021(13). Division of Retirement v. Allen, 395 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Division of Retirement v. Putnam, 386 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In Putnam, we stated: “[Ijn contrast to the compensable injury occurring by ‘accident’ in workers’ compensation parlance, a compensably disabling illness need not be precipitated by unusual strain or exertion not routine to the…
-
Daniels v. Division OF Retirement, 389 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…8(1). It was not shown that “the disease causing disability or death was caused by a specific, nonwork related event or exposure.” Cald [*342] well v. Division of Retirement, 372 So. 2d 438, 441 (Fla.1979). See also Division of Retirement v. Putnam, 386 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The Division’s order is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for an award of in-line-of-duty death benefits. BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Victor Wine & Liquor, Inc. v. Beasley, 141 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1961)
- Richard E. Mosca & Co., Inc. v. Mosca, 362 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 1978)
- Carolynn W. Walker v. State, 360 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)