HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SHARON WILLIAMS, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a workers' compensation order awarding benefits to a school bus driver who injured her back while picking up a piece of paper during her work duties. The court held that because the injury resulted from an idiopathic (pre-existing degenerative) condition triggered by a normal, everyday movement not beyond ordinary life exertion, the employment did not sufficiently contribute to or aggravate the condition to make it compensable.
The court held that an idiopathic condition resulting in injury is not compensable under workers' compensation unless the employment in some way contributes to the risk or aggravates the injury. Since the injury resulted from a normal movement not beyond ordinary exertion, the employment did not sufficiently contribute to or aggravate the condition, making the injury non-compensable.
[1] An idiopathic condition resulting in injury to a worker does not arise out of employment unless the employment contributes to the risk or aggravates the injury.
[2] A finding of an idiopathic condition and an injury resulting from a normal movement is inconsistent with a subsequent finding of aggravation of a preexisting condition ca…
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“an idiopathic condition which results in injury to the worker does not 'arise out of' employment unless the employment in some way contributes to the risk or aggravates the injury”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that an idiopathic condition is only compensable if employment contributes to the risk or aggravates the injury
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharon Williams, a school bus driver for Hillsborough County School Board, suffered a back injury while picking up a piece of paper as part of her dut…
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 Idiopathic Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The workers’ compensation order under review was entered on remand from this court for determination of whether claimant suffered from an idiopathic condition. See Hillsborough County School Board v. Williams, 565 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Following a short hearing, the judge of compensation claims entered an order finding that claimant in fact suffered from an idiopathic condition by way of a preexisting bulging at the L5-S1 level, which was degenerative in nature. He also found that claimant’s act of picking up a piece of paper, while cleaning the school bus she drove, was not an exertion or strain beyond that which a person would normally encounter in his or her everyday life.
Nonetheless, the JCC went on to find that because this was one of claimant’s employment duties, to wit: monitor and provide for a clean and safe bus interior, the incident caused claimant to suffer an aggravation of a preexisting condition while executing the duty.
Thus, the JCC found the accident and resulting injury compensable and awarded corresponding benefits.
On appeal, the employer/carrier argue that the JCC erred in finding claimant’s back injury to be compensable when he also found that she suffered from an idiopathic condition and that the injury did not result from an exertion or strain beyond that which she normally would encounter in her non-working life. As support, the E/C point to a “universal principle” of workers’ compensation law that “an idiopathic condition which results in injury to the worker does not ‘arise out of’ employment unless the employment in some way contributes to the risk or aggravates the injury.” See Southern Bell Telephone And Telegraph Company v. McCook, 355 So. 2d 1166, 1168 (Fla.1978) [footnote omitted].
We agree with the E/C’s position and hold that since the JCC found that claimant essentially suffered injury solely as a result of a normal movement, his further finding that there was an aggravation of a preexisting condition causally connected to her employment is inconsistent and constitutes reversible error. See Baker Mobiles of Florida v. O’Neil, 412 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Consequently, the order finding compensability and awarding benefits is hereby REVERSED.
ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernando Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Servs. v. Dokoupil, 667 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…out more, is not enough to establish com-pensability.” Grenon v. City of Palm Harbor Fire Dist., 634 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied mem., 649 So. 2d 233 (Fla.1994). This case is similar to Hillsborough County School Board v. Williams, 601 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This court therein reversed an award of benefits despite the fact that the claimant was engaged in one of her employment duties when injured. The claimant was a bus driver who was responsible for keeping the bus clean. She bent…
-
Vigliotti v. K-Mart Corp. & KM Admin. Serv., 680 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…rmally be exposed during his nonemployment life.” Acker v. Charles R. Burklew Constr., 654 So. 2d 1211, 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see Hernando County Sch. Bd. v. Dokoupil, 667 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Hillsborough County Sch. Bd. v. Williams, 601 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). With the enactment of the new statutory definition, however, a claimant must now show that the employment constitutes a major contributing cause of the accident or injury. The court addressed this very point in Dokoupil, 66…
-
Acker v. Charles R. Burklew Constr. & Executive Risk Consultants, 654 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…operly found that although Acker was on the job at the time, he was not exposed by his employment to conditions that one would not normally encounter during nonemployment life. Medeiros, supra. See also, Hillsborough County School Board v. Williams, 601 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (although cleaning the bus was required by claimant’s job as a school bus driver, a back injury suffered when claimant bent over to pick up a piece of paper while cleaning the bus was noncom-pensable, since it was solely the resu…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. McCOOK, 355 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1977)
- Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Poe Risk Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Williams, 565 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Baker Mobiles OF Fla. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Eugene O'Neil and the Division of Workers' Compensation, 412 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)