LARRY E. BURD, APPELLANT,
v.
DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the State Retirement Commission's denial of in-line-of-duty disability benefits for a police officer, finding unrefuted medical testimony established that employment aggravated his coronary disease.
An in-line-of-duty disability award is appropriate when unrefuted medical testimony establishes that employment aggravated the member's condition, and reversal is warranted when the Commission overlooks such medical evidence.
[1] Reversal of administrative denial of in-line-of-duty disability benefits is appropriate when unrefuted medical testimony establishes that employment aggravated the member…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The test for an in-line-of-duty disability award is whether an injury or illness, arising out of and in the actual performance of a duty required by a member's employment, was the substantial producing cause or an aggravating cause of a member's total and permanent disability.”
Establishing the legal standard for in-line-of-duty disability benefits under Florida law.
Larry Burd, a police officer, sought in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits for a heart condition. The State Retirement Commission denied his …
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 In-Line-Of-Duty Disability Retirement Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal from a final order, entered by the State Retirement Commission, denying appellant’s request for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits.
Appellant contends that the commission erred in finding that his employment as a police officer did not aggravate his heart condition and in denying in-line-of-duty benefits.
We find that the record contains no competent substantial evidence to support the Commission’s denial of in-line-of-duty benefits and reverse the order. The test for an in-line-of-duty disability award is whether an injury or illness, arising out of and in the actual performance of a duty required by a member’s employment, was the substantial producing cause or an aggravating cause of a member’s total and permanent disability. Blanton v. Division of Retirement, 480 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
In the present case, the unrefuted medical testimony establishes that appellant’s employment aggravated his coronary disease. Although this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact where the decision of the Commission is supported by competent substantial evidence, reversal is appropriate where the Commission has overlooked medical testimony regarding causation or aggravation. Andersen v. Division of Retirement, 538 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Accordingly, the Commission’s order is. reversed and the cause remanded with directions to award appellant in-line-of-duty benefits.
BOOTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edghar Glisson v. State, 621 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…n injury or illness, arising out of and in the actual performance of a duty required by a member’s employment, was the substantial producing cause or an aggravating cause of a member’s total and permanent disability.” Burd v. Division of Retirement, 581 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In this case, our review of the Commission’s decision is limited to a determination of whether the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence. If it is, we must affirm. We may not substitute our judgment for th…
Authorities Cited
- Alton M. Blanton v. Division OF Retirement, 480 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Andersen v. Division OF Retirement, 538 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)