MICHAEL TANGUILAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PMI EMPLOYEE LEASING, 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 court reversed the JCC's denial of workers' compensation benefits, holding that the claimant's momentary deviation from employment duties while lighting an explosive at the end of his shift did not bar compensability because the injury arose in the course and scope of employment.
A claimant's momentary and insignificant deviation from work duties while waiting to clock out does not constitute substantial abandonment of employment and does not bar workers' compensation benefits when the injury arises from that deviation.
[1] A claimant's momentary and insignificant deviation from work duties while waiting to clock out does not constitute substantial abandonment of employment sufficient to bar…
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 intelligenceMichael Tanguilan, an employee, lit an explosive while waiting to clock out at the end of his shift, resulting in injuries. The JCC determined he had …
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 Deviation From Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the JCC’s determination that Michael Tanguilan, the claimant, deviated from his employment and that his employment was not the major contributing cause of his injuries. The claimant only momentarily deviated from his employment when he lit the explosive while waiting to clock out at the epd of his shift. See Dunlevy v. Seminole County Dep’t of Public Safety, 792 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that the claimant’s playful roughhousing with another employee while the shift changed was only a momentary and insignificant deviation from work duties and that consequently the claimant’s injuries arising from the incident were compensable). That is, the claimant did not substantially abandon his work duties so as to bar his claim for workers’ compensation. Therefore, as the claimant was performing work in the course and scope of his employment and there was no cause for the claimant’s injuries other than his employment, the claimant’s injuries are compensable under the workers’ compensation law. See Vigliotti v. K-mart Corp., 680 So. 2d 466, 467-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (setting forth a two-part test for determining compensability: (1) the claimant must have been performing work in the course and scope of his employment, and (2) the work performed by the claimant must be the major contributing cause of the claimant’s injury); see also § 440.09(1), Fla. Stat. (2000); § 440.02(35), Fla. Stat. (2000).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BROWNING, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lethie Lanham v. Dep't OF Env't Prot. & Fla. Dep't of Ins. Risk Management/WC Claims, 868 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…imant’s injuries, rather than competing causes, claimant was not required to present additional evidence going to the issue of whether the work-related accident was the major contributing cause of the injuries. See Tanguilan v. PMI Employee Leasing, 832 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); La. Pac. Corp. v. Harcus, 774 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). REVERSED. BARFIELD and POLSTON, JJ., concur. . At the time of claimant’s injury, the definition was found at section 440.02(35), Florida Statutes (2000).…
-
Galaida v. Autozone, Inc., 882 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…y, Galaida’s accident is not compensable under the personal comfort doctrine. Further, we reject Galaida’s additional argument that his accident is com-pensable under the so-called “horseplay doctrine.” See, e.g., Tanguilan v. PMI Employee Leasing, 832 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(holding that claimant only momentarily deviated from his employment when he lit an explosive while waiting to clock out at the end of his shift and thus his injuries were compensable); Dunlevy v. Seminole County DPS, 792 So. 2d 5…
Authorities Cited
- Vigliotti v. K-Mart Corp. & KM Admin. Serv., 680 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Dunlevy v. Seminole Cnty. Dep't OF Pub. Safety & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 792 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)