SEMINOLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK JOHNSON, 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 addressed whether county sheriff's deputies are entitled to a statutory presumption that hypertension-related strokes are work-related under Florida's workers' compensation law. The court held that while the claimant was not entitled to the presumption under the 1999 statute, the 2002 amendment expanding the presumption to all law enforcement officers applied retroactively as a procedural enactment.
County sheriff's deputies were not entitled to the presumption under the 1999 version of the statute. However, the 2002 amendment, which expanded the presumption to include all law enforcement officers, is a procedural enactment and applies retroactively regardless of the date of injury. The case was remanded for the JCC to determine whether appellants rebutted the presumption with competent evidence.
[1] Amendments that change the burden of proof or the method of establishing entitlement to benefits are procedural and apply retroactively.
[2] A 2002 amendment to Florida Statutes section 112.18(1) expanded the class of individuals entitled to a statutory presumption of accidental injury in the line of duty.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 2002 amendment was a procedural enactment and should apply retroactively without regard to the date of accident and injury”
Establishes the retroactive application of the statutory amendment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Johnson, a county sheriff's deputy, suffered a stroke caused by hypertension. The Judge of Compensation Claims awarded him workers' compensation…
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 Burden Of Proof In Workers' Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We withdraw our previous opinion in this cause issued March 24, 2005, and substitute the following therefor. Appellants argue that the Judge of Compensation Claims (the “JCC”) erred by interpreting section 112.18(1), Florida Statutes (1999), providing a rebuttable presumption for specified firefighters and state law enforcement officers, to include county sheriffs deputies. The JCC found that claimant suffered a stroke caused by hypertension and that claimant’s hypertension was statutorily presumed to have been accidental and suffered in the line of duty pursuant to section 112.18(1). We agree with appellants that the amended 2002 version of the statute expanded the class of people entitled to the statutory presumption and claimant was not entitled to that presumption based on the 1999 statute. See Ch. 2002-286, § 3, at 1720, Laws of Fla. (changing the classification to include “any” law enforcement or correctional officer as statutorily defined).
However, we also agree with claimant’s argument that the 2002 amendment was a procedural enactment and should apply retroactively without regard to the date of accident and injury. See Brown v. L.P. Sanitation, 689 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (discussing section 440.15(13), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which changed a rebuttable presumption, and affirming the JCC’s ruling that the change in the law was a procedural enactment because it affected the burden of proof). As in Brown, the 2002 amendment to section 112.18(1) changed only the procedure of establishing entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. Id. Claimant’s substantive right to those benefits, or lack thereof, has remained unchanged since the date of his first stroke.
Although the presumption should apply to claimant under the amended statute,1 the JCC did not address whether appellants rebutted the presumption with competent evidence and, if so, whether there was evidence to establish that claimant’s hypertension was occupationally related. See e.g., Caldwell v. Div. of Ret., Florida Dep’t of Admin., 372 So. 2d 438 (Fla.1979); City of Temple Terrace v. Bailey, 481 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Therefore, we reverse the JCC’s award of compensation and remand for the JCC to address these issues pursuant to the amended statute.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
VAN NORTWICK, POLSTON and THOMAS, JJ., concur. . We reject appellants evidentiary argument relating to claimant’s prerequisite physical examination under section 112.18(1) without further comment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Punsky v. Clay Cnty. Sheriff's Off. & Scibal Ins. Grp., 18 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…City of West Palm Beach, 980 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Saldana v. Miami-Dade County, 978 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); City of Tarpon Springs v. Vaporis, 953 So. 2d 597, 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Seminole County Sheriff's Office v. Johnson, 901 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In at least three cases, however, we have noted the “clear and convincing” and “specific non-work related event or exposure” language of Caldwell, although without reference to the state of facts that existed in the Caldwell cas…
-
Scherer v. Volusia Cnty. Dep't OF Corr. & Volusia Cnty. Risk Mgmt., 171 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…disablement preceding its enactment. The second prong of Menendez is also met as this court’s precedent has upheld the constitutionality of retroactive application of substantially similar provisions. In Seminole County Sheriffs. Office v. Johnson, 901 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), we held that a 2002 amendment to subsection 112.18(1), which expanded the class of workers entitled to the presumption, was a procedural enactment that applies retroactively without regard to the date of accident and injury. Id.…
-
Pasco Cnty. Bocc & Commercial Risk Mgmt. v. Peterson, 913 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Seminole County Sheriff’s Office v. Johnson, 901 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). ERVIN, PADOVANO and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caldwell v. Division of Retirement, 372 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1979)
- Brown v. L.P. Sanitation & CNA Ins. Co., 689 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- City OF Temple Terrace & Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 481 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)