CITY OF ORLANDO AND ALEXSIS RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCES LEMAY, 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 City of Orlando and its workers' compensation servicing agent appealed a workers' compensation award for hearing loss caused by cumulative occupational noise exposure. The court affirmed the award, holding that under the repeated accident theory, a claimant may use an earlier date of accident rather than the last injurious exposure date in multiple exposure cases.
The court held that the judge properly applied the repeated accident theory and did not err in allowing the claimant to proceed on an earlier date of accident. In multiple exposure cases, the claimant is not precluded from seeking benefits based on one of the earlier dates of accident, as such claims necessarily involve repeated accidents with potentially multiple dates of accident.
[1] A hearing loss injury resulting from the cumulative effect of continued exposure to loud noises at work may be treated as a repeated accident under Florida workers' compe…
[2] The repeated accident theory, as established in Festa v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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 employer and servicing agent contend that the last injurious exposure should have been used as the date of accident. We conclude that the judge did not err in allowing the claimant to proceed on the earlier date of accident, because this multiple exposure case was properly entertained under the repeated accident theory approved by this court in Festa v. Teleflex, Inc.”
States the core issue and the court's holding that the repeated accident theory permits use of an earlier date of accident in multiple exposure cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant, Frances LeMay, suffered hearing loss from cumulative exposure to loud noises during employment with the City of Orlando. The workers' co…
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 Worker'S Compensation Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The employer and its servicing agent appeal a workers’ compensation order by which benefits were awarded in connection with a hearing loss injury. The judge found that this injury resulted from the cumulative effect of the claimant’s continued exposure to loud noises at work, and that these multiple exposures constituted repeated accidents. Although the claim was based on a date of accident coinciding with earlier exposure, the employer and servicing agent contend that the last injurious exposure should have been used as the date of accident. We conclude that the judge did not err in allowing the claimant to proceed on the earlier date of accident, because this multiple exposure case was properly entertained under the repeated accident theory approved by this court in Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 388 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.1980).
In arguing that the date of accident should be limited to the last injurious exposure, which coincided with the termination of the claimant’s regular employment duties, the employer and servicing agent allude to continuing injury principles from the occupational disease context. However, occupational disease theory is derived from section 440.151, Florida Statutes, which pi’ovides a doctrinal foundation separate and apart from the repeated trauma and multiple exposure injury theory as delineated in Festa. This distinction was thoroughly explained in Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin Chu, 597 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), wherein it was indicated that occupational disease concepts of responsibility in connection with the last injurious exposure do not govern date of accident determinations in repeated trauma and multiple exposure eases. See also Aetna Life and Casualty v. Schmitt, 597 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). As Tokyo House explains, repeated trauma and multiple exposure claims under Festa involve injuries which ensue from repeated accidents occasioned by the various traumas or exposures. See also Worden v. Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, 256 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1971); Keller Building Products v. Shirley, IRC Order 2-3263 (Nov. 3, 1977), cert. denied, 362 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1978).
Because the claim in this case is based on multiple exposure theory it necessarily involves repeated accidents, and there may be multiple dates of accident. Under such circumstances the claimant is not precluded from seeking benefits which might pertain in connection with one of the earlier dates of accident. See Pinellas County School Board v. Higgins, 597 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The judge therefore did not err in resolving the claim upon the alleged date of accident.
The appealed order is affirmed.
BENTON, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents without written opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Norris E. Worden v. Pratt AND Whitney Aircraft, 256 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1971)
- Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin CHU & Am. Policyholders Ins. Co., 597 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Higgins, 597 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- AETNA Life & Cas. Co. v. Schmitt, 597 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)