CITY OF MAITLAND AND FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT LEE HEATWOLE AND SEMINOLE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT AND GALLAGHER BASSETT, 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 City of Maitland and Florida League of Cities appealed a workers' compensation order awarding benefits to a police lieutenant who suffered a heart attack while providing authorized backup assistance to a county sheriff's deputy outside city limits. The court affirmed the award and held the City of Maitland responsible for compensation benefits because the officer was acting within the course and scope of his employment despite performing duties outside the city.
The court affirmed that the heart attack is compensable as work-related and that the City of Maitland is responsible for payment of compensation benefits because the officer was performing authorized assistance within the course and scope of his employment with the city police department, regardless of the location outside city limits.
[1] A heart attack suffered by a police officer while providing authorized backup assistance outside his jurisdiction is compensable under workers' compensation.
[2] An employer is responsible for workers' compensation benefits when an employee performs authorized assistance for another agency, even if the assistance occurs outside th…
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“Competent, substantial evidence supports the deputy's finding that claimant's heart attack is compensable, and we affirm that issue without discussion.”
Establishes that the compensability of the heart attack is supported by substantial evidence and affirmed without further analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Heatwole, a lieutenant with the City of Maitland Police Department, was on duty and heard a radio dispatch for a Seminole County Sheriff's depu…
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 Course And Scope Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
The City of Maitland and the Florida League of Cities appeal a workers’ compensation order ruling that claimant Robert Heatwole’s heart attack is compensable and that appellants are responsible for payment of compensation benefits. Claimant, a lieutenant with the City of Maitland Police Department, was working within his jurisdiction while on duty when he heard a radio call dispatching a Seminole County Sheriffs Department deputy to the scene of an alleged fight. Aware that he was the closest patrol vehicle to the scene and that the deputy sheriff had no available backup, claimant proceeded to the crime scene, which was outside the city limits of Mait-land, and assisted the deputy sheriff in apprehending the suspect. Immediately after the apprehension, claimant suffered a heart attack. The deputy commissioner found the heart attack resulted from unusual stress incident to this episode and awarded workers’ compensation benefits to claimant.
Competent, substantial evidence supports the deputy’s finding that claimant’s heart attack is compensable, and we affirm that issue without discussion.
We also affirm the deputy commissioner’s finding that the City, rather than the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department, is responsible for payment of the resulting worker’s compensation benefits. The record shows that the City of Maitland Police Department authorized claimant to provide backup for the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department and that the two departments routinely provide backup for each other without regard to whether such backup is rendered within the city of Mait-land. Regardless of the fact that the Sheriff’s Department received the direct benefit of the city police officer’s assistance outside the city limits, the City is nevertheless responsible for payment of claimant’s compensation benefits because the claimant was performing authorized assistance to the deputy sheriff and thus was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the city police department. Because the claimant was performing authorized acts while on duty for the City of Maitland, we need not invoke the doctrine of implied employment held applicable in Johnson v. Metropolitan Dade County, 424 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and for this reason find that case materially distinguishable on the facts.
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Daytona Beach v. Vaughn, 637 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See City of Maitland v. Heatwole, 546 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). ERVIN, JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.…
-
Rizk v. Seminole Cnty. Sheriff (M.D. Fla. 2024)…ff's case; or (3) 9 With regard to the state law claims, officers are entitled to statutory immunity when acting within the course and scope of their employment with respect to the alleged excessive use of force. See City of Maitland v. Heatwole, 546 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); FLA. STAT. § 768.28(9)(a); infra Section III.B. 10 Accordingly, the Court will not address the merits of this initial requirement. 14 ---PAGE 15--- Case 6:18-cv-01414-PGB-RMN Document 252 Filed 01/26/24 Page 15 of 39 Pag…
-
Sapp v. Marcum (M.D. Fla. 2023)…on v. Parker, 746 F. 8 With regard to the state law claims, officers are entitled to statutory immunity when acting within the course and scope of their employment with respect to the alleged excessive use of force. See City of Maitland v. Heatwole, 546 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); FLA. STAT. § 768.28(9)(a). App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2018).9 “Although suspects have a right to be free from force that is excessive, they are not protected against a use of force that is necessary in the situation at hand.”…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 424 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)