NOEL JAVIER, APPELLANT,
v.
GOLDCOAST, INC. AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Javier appeals a workers' compensation award that apportioned 50% of his permanent total disability benefits due to preexisting conditions. The court reverses, holding that apportionment is improper when preexisting impairments were not disabling at the time of the work injury and the subsequent disability results entirely from the compensable injury.
Apportionment of permanent total disability benefits is improper when preexisting impairments were not disabling at the time of the accident and the present disability results entirely from the compensable injury. The court rejected the approach in Goldsmith I that apportioned based solely on impairment rating percentages, reverting to the Evans standard requiring analysis of whether preexisting conditions caused disability either before or after the compensable injury.
[1] Apportionment of a permanent total disability award is proper only when a pre-existing disease was disabling at the time of the accident and continued to be so, or was pr…
[2] A claimant suffering from a prior condition that has not disabled them from performing gainful employment may recover benefits for a subsequent injury due to a compensabl…
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“[Apportionment is proper only when and to the extent that the pre-existing [sic] disease either, (1) was disabling at the time of the accident and continued to be so at the time the award is made or (2) was producing no disability at the time of the accident but through its normal progress is doing so at the time permanent disability is determined and an award is made.”
Establishes the Evans standard for determining proper apportionment, requiring analysis of whether preexisting conditions actually caused disability rather than relying solely on impairment ratings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 23, 1984, the 43-year-old appellant suffered a work-related heart attack with a guarded prognosis and five- to seven-year life expectancy. 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 Compensable Heart Attack cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals that portion of the deputy commissioner’s order apportioning out 50 percent of appellant’s permanent total disability award due to a preexisting impairment. We reverse.
On March 23, 1984, the approximately 43-year-old appellant suffered an indisputably compensable heart attack at work, leaving him with a guarded prognosis and a five-to seven-year life expectancy. According to the medical evidence at the time of his heart attack, he suffered two preexisting conditions: arteriosclerotic coronary artery disease, which results in a 75 percent medical impairment rating, and severe peripheral vascular disease, which results in a 15 percent impairment rating. However, those two conditions were substantial ly asymptomatic prior to appellant’s work-related heart attack and thus, at the time of his heart attack, those conditions were not disabilities affecting appellant’s wage-earning capacity.
According to further medical evidence, as a direct result of the heart attack, appellant has acquired two new conditions: a ventricular aneurysm, which constitutes appellant’s primary health problem at this time and results in a 75 percent impairment rating, and a possible dangerous ventricular arrhythmia resulting from the aneurysm and supporting an additional 15 percent impairment rating.
The deputy commissioner found, based on the medical evidence, that “the permanent impairment of the claimant renders him permanently and totally disabled.” Apparently, relying upon this Court’s decision in Escambia County Council v. Goldsmith, 465 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (Goldsmith I), the deputy commissioner apportioned out 50 percent of appellant’s permanent total disability award due to the preexisting impairments and thereby awarded appellant only 50 percent of the permanent total disability benefits to which he would be entitled.
In Goldsmith I, this Court declared that pursuant to 1979 and 1980 amendments to chapter 440, Florida Statutes, a deputy commissioner should apportion out of a permanent total disability award that percentage of an independent, preexisting permanent impairment, regardless of the preexisting impairment’s relationship to any disability. However, this Court has recently reconsidered Goldsmith I and receded therefrom in Escambia County Council v. Goldsmith, 500 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (Goldsmith II).
In Goldsmith II, this Court reverted to the pre-Goldsmith I law as established by Evans v. Florida Industrial Commission, 196 So. 2d 748, 752 (Fla.1967):
[Ajpportionment is proper only when and to the extent that the pre-existing [sic] disease either, (1) was disabling at the time of the accident and continued to be so at the time the award is made or (2) was producing no disability at the time of the accident but through its normal progress is doing so at the time permanent disability is determined and an award is made.
In Goldsmith II, this Court declared:
As we read this plain language [of section 440.15(5)(a), Florida Statutes], it means that an employee who has been suffering from a prior condition ... which has not disabled him from performing gainful employment may recover benefits for a subsequent injury due to a compensable accident despite the presence of such preexisting condition.
Op. at 635. Thus, once again, we do not consider only impairment ratings in determining the propriety of apportionment. Pertinent to the apportionment issue is the relationship of • each impairment to the claimant’s present disability. Note that in Lemus v. Industrial Sites Services, 482 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), despite the standing decision in Goldsmith I at that time, this Court maintained the Evans standard.
The evidence in the instant case does not support any finding that the preexisting impairments resulted in any disability either before or after the occurrence of the compensable heart attack. Instead, the evidence supports a finding that the conditions resulting directly from the heart attack are fully responsible for appellant’s present permanent total disability. Therefore, the deputy commissioner erred in apportioning out 50 percent of the permanent total disability award due to appellant’s preexisting impairments alone.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order awarding appellant permanent total disability benefits without apportionment.
SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Standard Fire Ins. Co. serviced by Crawford & Co. v. U-Haul Co. OF E. Fla. & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. & James Read, 551 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…establishing the extent of apportionment, impairment ratings are not the only factors to be considered. The determinative factor is the degree to which each injury and the resulting impairment causes a present disability. Javier v. Goldcoast, Inc., 501 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), Evans v. Florida Industrial Commission, 196 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1967), and Escambia County Council on Aging v. Goldsmith, 500 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In the instant case, the deputy did not make a finding that the claimant w…
-
Fegles Power Co. v. Baggett, 560 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…rough its normal progress is doing so at the time permanent disability is determined and an award is made. 196 So. 2d at 752-753. See also Escambia County Council on Aging v. Goldsmith, 500 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Javier v. Goldcoast, Inc., 501 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). [*1333] In determining whether and to what extent apportionment should be made, it is necessary to determine the degree or extent of disability falling within the three categories as stated above and to apportion out of an award…
-
Wood & Wood & Shelby Ins. Grp. v. Irwin Dort, 625 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…award, or (2) was producing no disability at the time of the subsequent injury but, through normal progress, is doing so at the time of the award. Fegles Power Company v. Baggett, 560 So. 2d 1330, 1332 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); Javier v. Gold Coast, Inc., 501 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA1987); Escambia County Council on Aging v. Goldsmith, 500 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA1986). The JCC’s order contains implicit findings that claimant’s 1975 injury had not, at the time of the 1983 injury, resulted in a disabling condition b…
Authorities Cited
- Evans v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 196 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1967)
- Escambia Cnty. Council ON Aging & Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Goldsmith, 500 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Lemus v. Indus. Sites Servs. & Argonaut Ins. Co., 482 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Escambia Cnty. Council ON Aging & Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Goldsmith, 465 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)