MELLON SECURITY & SOUND AND PCA SOLUTIONS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRY CUSTER, 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 Florida workers' compensation court awarded medical benefits to an employee injured in a 1994 motor vehicle accident, finding that pre-existing asymptomatic back and neck conditions were aggravated by the accident and that obesity and hypertension treatment was medically necessary for recovery. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the compensable accident was the major contributing cause of the need for treatment.
The compensable accident was the major contributing cause of the need for treatment of the aggravated back and neck conditions, entitling the claimant to benefits. The employer and carrier must pay for treatment of obesity and hypertension because treating physicians agreed such treatment was medically necessary to the claimant's recovery from the compensable injuries. Statutory provisions cited by the employer and carrier do not preclude benefits.
[1] An employer is responsible for workers' compensation benefits when a work-related injury combines with a pre-existing condition to cause or prolong disability or the need…
[2] An employer must provide treatment for a claimant's pre-existing conditions, such as obesity and hypertension, if such treatment is medically necessary for the claimant's…
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 an injury arising out of and in the course of employment combines with a preexisting disease or condition to cause or prolong disability or need for treatment, the employer must pay compensation or benefits required by this chapter only to the extent that the injury arising out of and in the course of employment is and remains the major contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment.”
Establishes the statutory test for employer liability when a compensable injury combines with pre-existing conditions
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 sustained injuries in a compensable 1994 motor vehicle accident. The claimant had pre-existing asymptomatic back and neck conditions that…
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 Aggravation Of Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Chief Judge.
The employer and carrier (E/C) appeal a workers’ compensation order awarding medical benefits to a claimant who had pre-exist-ing conditions, some of which (back and neck conditions) the judge of compensation claims (JCC) found were asymptomatic prior to the compensable 1994 motor vehicle accident and were aggravated by the accident, causing a need for treatment, including surgery, and some of which (obesity and hypertension) the JCC found hindered the claimant’s treatment of and recovery from the injuries sustained in the compensable accident. We affirm the order, which we find to be sufficiently detailed and not prejudicially delayed.
The JCC properly found that both the neck condition and the back condition were causally related to the compensable accident and that the claimant “has met his burden of proof in establishing compensability of both the neck and back conditions,” based upon the expert opinions of several physicians, including an expert medical advis-or appointed by the Division of Workers’ Compensation to resolve the differences of opinion among the medical experts. Section 440.09(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), provides:
If an injury arising out of and in the course of employment combines with a preexisting disease or condition to cause or prolong disability or need for treatment, the employer must pay compensation or benefits required by this chapter only to the extent that the injury arising out of and in the course of employment is and remains the major contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment.
The record contains competent substantial evidence that the aggravation of the claimant’s pre-existing back and neck conditions caused by the compensable accident “is and remains the major contributing cause of the ... need for treatment.”
The JCC also properly found that the E/C were responsible for providing the claimant with treatment for obesity and hypertension because the treating physicians agreed that treatment of these conditions was medically necessary to the claimant’s treatment and recovery from the compensable injuries to his back and neck, see sections 440.13(l)(m) and 440.13(2)(a). Contrary to the E/C’s contention, the 1994 amendments to chapter 440 do not change the E/C’s obligation in this respect.
As to the E/C’s assertion that sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 preclude the claimant from entitlement to worker’s compensation benefits, the JCC properly ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to determine, as a prerequisite to application of section 440.09(4), that the claimant knowingly or intentionally made false or misleading statements for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits. See this court’s very recent decisions in E.H. v. Temporary Labor Source, Inc., 687 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and Horizons Painting v. Lessard, 688 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Finally, we note that the E/C’s ruling on the claimant’s section 440.20(4) estoppel argument was incorrect, see North River Insurance Company v. Wuelling, 674 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), but that this was harmless error in that it was an alternative finding to the determination that the claimant “has met his burden of proof in establishing compensability of both the neck and back conditions.”
AFFIRMED.
KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell Corp. & Thomas Howell Group/GAB Robbins v. Brooks, 698 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…claim for benefits); Spence v. Trader Publ'g Co., 688 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Jupiter Hosp. v. Wall, 688 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(reversing order which determined compensability on the basis of Waffle House); Mellon Sec. & Sound v. Custer, 687 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Olsten Staffing Servs. v. Cooks, 694 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(treating appellee’s motion to dismiss as confession of error and reversing for further proceedings in light of Wuelling); E.H. v. Temporary Labor Source, I…
-
City of Cooper City/Florida Mun. Ins. Trust/Florida League of Cities v. Farthing, 905 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…s held that this major-contributing-cause requirement of section 440.09(l)(b) is satisfied by proof that workplace exposure aggravated a preexisting disease. J & J Enters. v. Oweis, 733 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Mellon Sec. & Sound v. Custer, 687 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). We direct the JCC to consider this theory of recovery on remand. We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur. . City of Cooper City v. Farthing, 898 So. 2d 1189…
-
Alachua Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Palmer & Cay/Carswell v. Starling, 699 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…laim for benefits); Spence v. Trader Publ'g Co., 688 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Jupiter Hosp. v. Wall, 688 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(reversing order which determined compensability on the basis of Waffle House)-, Mellon Sec. & Sound v. Custer, 687 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Olsten Staffing Servs. v. Cooks, 694 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(treating appellee’s motion to dismiss as confession of error and reversing for further proceedings in light of Wuelling); E.H. v. Temporary Labor Source, I…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Horizons Painting & PCA Solutions, Inc. v. Lessard, 688 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- N. River Ins. Co. c/o Crum & Forster & M.F. Hinote & Son v. Wuelling, 674 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Miles v. Hon. Marlene M. Alva, 687 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- In the Interest of L.M.G. v. State, 687 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)