AUBREY SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, SELF-INSURED, 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.
A retired firefighter sought workers' compensation benefits for heart disease that developed 15 months after retirement, claiming coverage under Florida's firefighter presumption statute. The court affirmed the denial of benefits, holding that the statutory presumption applies only to firefighters in active service, not retirees.
The statutory presumption for firefighters applies only to those in active service at the time the condition or impairment manifests. Retired firefighters are not entitled to invoke the presumption, and the decision to extend such benefits to retirees rests with the Legislature.
[1] A firefighter must be in active service to invoke the presumption statute for heart disease, tuberculosis, or hypertension.
[2] The definition of "fireman" in section 112.191(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires active employment status.
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“Any condition or impairment of health of any Florida municipal ... fireman caused by tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension resulting in total or partial disability or death shall be presumed to have been accidental and to have been suffered in the line of duty unless the contrary be shown by competent evidence”
The statutory presumption language that the court interpreted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was a firefighter employed by the City of Miami for 26 years. A pre-employment physical examination revealed no heart disease. Fifteen months af…
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 Active Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the claimant contends that te deputy erred in refusing to extend the firefighter’s presumption statute, section 112.18(1), Florida Statutes (1987), to his claim. We affirm.
The claimant is a retired firefighter who served the City of Miami for twenty-six years. A physical examination of the claimant conducted before he began his service revealed no indication of heart disease. Fifteen months following his retirement, however, claimant suffered a heart attack. Claiming disability due to heart disease, claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant and the City of Miami, the self-insured employer, submitted a single issue for the deputy’s consideration: whether a retired firefighter who became disabled with heart disease after retirement could invoke the firefighter’s presumption statute. The deputy concluded that the Legislature did not intend to create a presumption applicable to anyone other than a presently employed fireman.
Section 112.18(1) provides:
Any condition or impairment of health of any Florida municipal ... fireman caused by tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension resulting in total or partial disability or death shall be presumed to have been accidental and to have been suffered in the line of duty unless the contrary be shown by competent evidence ....
In Lansford v. Broward County Board of County Commissioners, 485 So. 2d 845 (Fla.1st DCA 1986), this court utilized the definition provided in section 112.191(1)(b) in a workers’ compensation appeal to determine that paramedics were not entitled to the presumption. We see no reason not to employ the same analysis in this case. Section 112.191(1)(b) provides that whenever used in this act, “fireman”
means any duly employed uniformed firemen employed by an employer ... who is a member of a duly constituted fire department ...
The plain meaning of the words “any duly employed uniformed fireman” con- tamed in this section is that “a fireman” under the act must be in active service. Since section 112.191(1)(b) is unambiguous, we are compelled to hold that in order to invoke the presumption, one must be on active duty status when any condition or impairment caused by tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension is suffered. The statute offers no ground for any other construction, and therefore, the decision to entitle retired firefighters to the same privilege accorded those in active service rests with the Legislature.
As the claimant has chosen not to reserve the right to present evidence on the cause of his alleged disability apart from the presumption, the deputy’s dismissal of the claim is AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS, C.J., SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Pensacola & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Winchester, 560 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…total or partial disability or death shall be presumed to have been accidental and to have been suffered in the line of duty unless the [*1275] contrary be shown by competent evidence .... .§ 112.18(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). See Smith v. City of Miami, 552 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Article VI, § 24 of the Pensacola Code, provides that “in the event of disability of any pensioner, he shall be entitled to such pension as is hereby provided in addition to any workmen’s compensation that may be payable to him…
-
City OF Clearwater & Johns E. Co. v. Carpentieri, 659 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…rt attack. The JCC further noted the testimony of the Fire Chief that Carpentieri would have been subject to recall in the event of a need until such time as his pension was approved. While noting the holding of this court in Smith v. City of Miami, 552 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (a firefighter for the City of Miami who had been retired for 18 months when he suffered a heart attack was not entitled to the presumption of the statute), the JCC reasoned that Carpentieri, at the time of his heart attack, was…
-
St. Lucie FCRD and PGCS v. Fmit, 259 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…Appellants now argue that they should not be on the risk for the 2016 injury because Carpentieri demands a consideration of “active duty status.” We disagree. Simply put, Carpentieri refused to muddy the bright line drawn in Smith v. City of Miami, 552 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), wherein we held that the presumption does not apply to people who retired from firefighting before their date of accident. Relying on Smith, Carpentieri held that an injured worker was still a firefighter even though on the date…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lansford v. Broward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 485 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)