DOLORES A. DANIELS, APPELLANT,
v.
DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, APPELLEE
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.
Daniels appealed the Division of Retirement's denial of in-line-of-duty death benefits following her husband's death from myocardial infarction. The court held that the Division improperly substituted its own factual findings for the hearing officer's findings and failed to overcome the statutory presumption that a firefighter's heart disease death occurred in the line of duty.
The court reversed the Division's denial of benefits, holding that the Division improperly substituted its own factual findings for the hearing officer's findings and failed to overcome the statutory presumption under Section 112.18(1) that a fireman's death from heart disease was suffered in the line of duty.
[1] A Division of Retirement denying in-line-of-duty death benefits must give deference to contrary findings of fact made by a hearing officer on subjects within the hearing…
[2] A statutory presumption exists that a fireman's death due to heart disease was suffered in the line of duty, and this presumption is overcome only if the disease causing…
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“In denying death benefits on the stated ground that the fireman's death was caused by a ventricular fibrillation attributable to pushing a wheelbarrow on the non-work related construction project, the Division substituted findings of fact for contrary findings of the hearing officer on subjects on which the hearing officer's recommended order was entitled to greater deference.”
Establishes the core legal error—the Division improperly substituted its own factual findings for those of the hearing officer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniels' husband, a fireman and emergency medical technician, suffered a myocardial infarction while off duty after pushing wheelbarrow loads on a nei…
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.
Daniels appeals from an order of the Division of Retirement denying her in-line-of-duty death benefits claimed upon the death of her husband, a fireman, due to heart disease. Section 121.23, Florida Statutes (1979). The fireman suffered a myocardial infarction while off duty after pushing heavy wheelbarrow loads on a neighbor’s construction project. The Division decided the claim pursuant to Section 120.57, after referring the matter to a DOAH hearing officer for hearing, because the Retirement Commission interprets Section 121.23 as limiting its review jurisdiction to disability retirement decisions by the Division, excluding review of death benefits decisions.
The hearing officer found:
[T]he decedent’s myocardial infarction was, in fact, caused by the stress and strain of his job as a fire fighter and emergency medical technician. In fact, it appears from the medical testimony in this proceeding that the decedent was having a heart attack which led to the myocardial infarction on the night of July 19,1976, or in the early morning hours of July 20, 1976, while he was still on duty. It further appears that, although physical exertion, such as the pushing of the wheelbarrow loads of cement by the decedent, might act as a “triggering mechanism” for ventricular fibrillation, the decedent’s activities on the afternoon of July 20, 1976, had very little to do with his death. The type of lesion present in the decedent’s heart, which had occurred as much as 48 hours prior to his death, was of such magnitude that he would likely have died regardless of the type of physical activity in which he engaged on July 20, 1976.
In denying death benefits on the stated ground that the fireman’s death was caused by a ventricular fibrillation attributable to pushing a wheelbarrow on the non-work related construction project, the Division substituted findings of fact for contrary findings of the hearing officer on subjects on which the hearing officer’s recommended order was entitled to greater deference. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The Division’s order does not overcome the effect of those findings and the statutory presumption that a fireman’s death due to heart disease was suffered in the line of duty. Section 112.18(1). It was not shown that “the disease causing disability or death was caused by a specific, nonwork related event or exposure.” Cald 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Punsky v. Clay Cnty. Sheriff's Off. & Scibal Ins. Grp., 18 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ithout reference to the state of facts that existed in the Caldwell case. See Butler v. City of Jacksonville, 980 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); City of West Palm Beach v. Burbaum, 632 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Daniels v. Div. of Retirement, 389 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (addressing statutory presumption, but reversing because “the Division substituted findings of fact for contrary findings of the hearing officer on subjects on which the hearing officer’s recommended order was entitled to greater…
-
Lansford v. Broward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 485 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…d property therefrom and Lansford’s principal duty was medical care, he was not a fireman entitled to the presumption of Section 112.18(1). We agree. The authorities cited by Lansford herein are not persuasive. In Daniels v. Division of Retirement, 389 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), the claimant was accepted as a firefighter as well as an emergency medical technician; there was no issue as to his identity.’ Similarly, Stanford v. Florida, Claim No. [ XXX-XX-XXXX ] (1977), aff’d. IRC (1978), involved a fores…
-
City OF Gainesville & Crawford & Co. v. Clent B. Beck, 450 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…and suffered in the line of duty unless the contrary is shown by competent evidence. The deputy commissioner correctly determined that claimant’s heart attack was a compensable accident arising in the line of duty. Daniels v. Division of Retirement, 389 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Claimant’s disability, however, was not caused by his heart attack, but rather by his back injury which preceded his heart attack by over three months and physically incapacitated claimant until January, 1982, over four months a…
Authorities Cited
- McDONALD v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Caldwell v. Division of Retirement, 372 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1979)
- Division OF Retirement v. Putnam, 386 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)