EASTERN AIRLINES AND RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. APPELLANTS,
v.
JEANNE KENNEDY, 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.
Eastern Airlines and Reliance Insurance Company appealed a workers' compensation judge's order awarding permanent total disability benefits to Jeanne Kennedy without apportioning benefits for her pre-existing degenerative arthritis. The court affirmed the award of medical treatment but reversed and remanded the rejection of the apportionment defense, finding the judge erred by refusing to allow evidence on apportionment at the initial hearing.
The court affirmed the award of medical treatment as the judge's order specifically delineated the treatment costs to be borne by appellants. However, the court reversed the rejection of the apportionment defense and remanded for a hearing solely on that issue, as the judge's prohibition on presenting evidence on apportionment made the denial of the defense erroneous.
[1] A judge of compensation claims errs by denying an apportionment defense when the judge explicitly states that the issue will be addressed in a separate hearing and then f…
[2] An employer asserting an apportionment defense based on a pre-existing condition must present supporting factual evidence, but is excused from doing so when the judge ind…
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“if a compensable permanent impairment is the result of the aggravation of a preexisting condition, benefits therefor should exclude the degree of impairment existing at the time of the industrial accident”
Establishes the statutory basis for the apportionment defense under Florida law that the judge should have considered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKennedy worked for Eastern Airlines for twelve years as a ticket agent involving repetitive heavy lifting. For nine years before leaving in September …
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 Permanent Total Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Eastern Airlines and Reliance Insurance Company have appealed an order of the judge of compensation claims alleging error because the judge of compensation claims denied their apportionment defense, and because medical treatment was awarded without the terms thereof being specified. As to the latter issue, we affirm. The judge’s order specifically delineates the treatment the cost of which is to be borne by the appellants. However, as to the rejection of appellants’ apportionment defense, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Claimant Kennedy worked for Eastern Airlines for twelve years in various capacities, most recently as a ticket agent whose duties included repetitive lifting of heavy luggage. It was undisputed that, for the nine years preceding September 1987, when Kennedy left her job due to increasing pain in her back, wrists and feet, she had been under the care of a rheumatologist for treatment of degenerative arthritis.
Two hearings were held on Kennedy’s claim for permanent total disabilty benefits. The first, in February 1989, was restricted to the issue of compensability, although appellants had already asserted an apportionment defense. Appellants specifically reiterated the defense at the commencement of the second hearing in April 1989, when their counsel stated that, “as an alternative defense, ... should the Court find permanent total disability ..., benefits should be apportioned due to [claimant’s] pre-existing arthritic condition.”
The judge nevertheless interrupted appellants’ subsequent cross examination of the claimant as to her prior medical history to state: “I am not going to rule on apportionment at this hearing.... That’s going to be a separate hearing.” Counsel acquiesced and did not pursue the issue further. In his order finding Kennedy permanently totally disabled, the judge “specifically rejected] any apportionment, as there was no evidence presented.”
Section 440.15(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) provides that, if a compensable permanent impairment is the result of the aggravation of a preexisting condition, benefits therefor should exclude the degree of impairment existing at the time of the industrial accident. The appellants clearly argued the applicability of this provision, but presented no supporting factual evidence following the judge’s explicit statement that he intended to hold a separate hearing on the issue. In light of this ruling, it was error to deny the defense based on the lack of evidence. We therefore reverse, and remand for further proceedings directed solely to appellants’ apportionment defense.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
SHIVERS, C.J., and MINER, J., concur.