PRAHL BROTHERS, INC. AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARGARET PHILLIPS AND DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 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.
A Florida workers' compensation appeal concerning whether a psychiatric injury resulting from an armed robbery at work is compensable under state law. The court affirmed an award of benefits, holding that the injury was not excluded under the statute's bar on mental injuries caused by "fright or excitement only" because the claimant experienced non-disabling physical trauma during the robbery.
The court held that the claimant's psychiatric injury was compensable. Although mental or nervous injuries must be predicated upon an underlying physical injury or trauma, that underlying injury need not be itself disabling. Because the claimant experienced non-disabling physical trauma—the gun placed to her head and ring removed from her finger—which was a significant causative factor in her psychiatric impairment, the injury was not excluded by the statute.
[1] A mental or nervous injury is not compensable under workers' compensation if it is solely due to fright or excitement.
[2] A disabling psychiatric impairment precipitated by an employment-related incident is compensable even if there is no visible contusion or immediate physical disability.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A mental or nervous injury due to fright or excitement only ... shall be deemed not to be injury by accident arising out of the employment”
The statutory exclusion at issue in the case, which the court found did not apply because the injury involved non-disabling physical trauma in addition to psychological distress
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret Phillips worked as a switchboard operator at a Miami hotel when an armed robbery occurred. During the robbery, a handgun was placed to her he…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Causal Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order which found that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded temporary disability benefits to her. Employer/carrier contend that § 440.02(18), Florida Statutes, precludes an award of benefits in the circumstances of the present case. We agree with the deputy commissioner that claimant’s injury was not one “due to fright or excitement only” (e.s.), within the constraints of the cited statute, and we affirm the order appealed.
An armed robbery occurred while claimant was employed as a switchboard operator at a Miami hotel; during the course of this robbery a handgun was placed to claimant’s head, a ring was physically removed from her finger, and she was forced to lie on the floor. Although claimant sustained no visible contusion or immediate physical disability as a result of this incident, she soon thereafter developed a disabling psychiatric impairment. Testimony of claimant’s treating physician clearly established that this psychiatric impairment was precipitated by the employment-related robbery, and that a gun being placed to her head and a ring being physically removed from her finger were significant circumstances in the causal etiology of claimant’s mental injury.
Section 440.02(18) provides, in pertinent part, that:
A mental or nervous injury due to fright or excitement only ... shall be deemed not to be injury by accident arising out of the employment ....
It is well established that compensation for neurosis must be predicated upon an underlying physical injury or trauma. See e.g., Superior Millwork v. Gabel, 89 So. 2d 794 (Fla.1956); Indian River County Sheriffs Department v. Roske, 417 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Williams v. Hillsborough County School Board, 389 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), pet. for rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1981). However, the underlying physical injury or trauma need not be itself disabling for the ensuing mental or nervous injury to be compensable. See Watson v. Melman Inc., 106 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958), cert. denied 111 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1959).
In Watson the claimant was struck on the head by a cardboard spool; although the blow produced no visible physical injury other than a slight discoloration of the skin, the claimant’s ensuing psychiatric impairment was nevertheless compensable. In so ruling the court focused on the clear evidence of causal relation and the “symbolic significance” which the blow held for the particular claimant.
As in Watson, in the present case the non-disabling physical trauma was a significant causative factor in the claimant’s ensuing psychiatric impairment. As the deputy in the present case determined, in such circumstances the disability is not due to fright or excitement only, and § 440.02(18) therefore does not preclude compensability for the ensuing mental or nervous injury.
The order appealed is affirmed.
JOANOS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec., Inc., 552 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1989)…as held that severe emotional disorders also may be compensable where caused by actual physical injury at the workplace.4 E.g., Sheppard v. City of Gainesville Police Dep ’t, 490 So. 2d 972, 974-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Prahl Bros., Inc. v. Phillips, 429 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 440 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1983). This is not true, however, where no physical injury has occurred, since the statute by its own terms excludes such matters. E.g., Superior Mill Work v. Gabel, 89 So. 2d 794 (Fla.1956); Davis…1 / 3
-
City OF Holmes Beach v. Grace, 598 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1992)…find this case virtually indistinguishable from pri- or decisions of this court, we affirm the compensability of this claim. See Sheppard v. City of Gainesville Police Department, 490 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Prahl Brothers, Inc. v. Phillips, 429 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); and City of Tampa v. Tingler, 397 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). City of Holmes Beach v. Grace, 570 So. 2d at 1012. Where there has been a physical accident or trauma and the claimant’s disability is increased or prolonged by…1 / 2
-
Schwartz v. Zippy Mart, Inc., 470 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…nefits. Nor are we free to hold that a battery is not a battery. Our court has held that batteries of slighter touchings than these are sufficient traumas to entitle the victims to workers’ compensation coverage. In Prahl Brothers, Inc. v. Phillips, 429 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), we held that a claimant’s disabling psychiatric impairment which was precipitated by an employment-related robbery was compensable. There the non-disabling physical trauma, a gun placed to claimant’s head and a ring physically r…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Therber v. Travelers Fire Ins. Co., 89 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1956)
- Johnnye Mae Williams v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Ins. Co. of N. Am., 389 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Vennie M. Watson v. Melman, Inc., 106 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Milledge, 111 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1959)
- West v. Melvin, 111 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1959)
- Indian River Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Roske, 417 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)