POLK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/POLK GENERAL HOSPITAL AND COMMERCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
ZOLA ANNE ROSS, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2005-09-22
No. 1D04-3067
KAHN, C.J., DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
911 So. 2d 854 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a workers' compensation judge's decision that an employee timely reported her occupational Hepatitis C disease and that the employer/carrier was responsible. The case turned on whether the employee had to report the injury within thirty days of initial manifestation or within thirty days of obtaining a medical opinion identifying the cause.


Holding

Yes. The court affirmed the judge of compensation claims' finding that the claimant timely reported her industrial accident because there was no medical causation established prior to Dr. Rothstein's April 12, 2003 opinion, and the claimant reported the disease within thirty days of obtaining that medical opinion.


Headnotes

[1] A claimant must report an injury within thirty days after the date of, or the initial manifestation of, the injury, unless the cause of the injury could not be identified…

[2] The determination of whether the cause of an injury could be identified without a medical opinion is a factual determination for the judge of compensation claims.

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

Key Quotes

“The cause of the injury could not be identified without a medical opinion and the employee advised the employer within 30 days after obtaining a medical opinion indicating that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment”

Establishes the statutory exception allowing delayed reporting if a medical opinion was required to identify the cause of injury

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The claimant's employment ended in 1994 and she filed a Petition for Benefits on April 3, 2002, claiming she contracted Hepatitis C through work. The …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants employer/carrier (“E/C”) appeal an order of the judge of compensation claims (“JCC”), finding that appellee claimant timely reported the industrial accident in which she contracted Hepatitis C and that the E/C was responsible for the claimant’s disease. We affirm.

I.

The claimant’s employment ended in 1994 and she filed a Petition for Benefits on April 3, 2002. The E/C contended that the claimant knew as early as 1995 that she was infected. The claimant responded that she notified the E/C within thirty days of obtaining a medical opinion concerning a causal connection between her disease and her employment.

The E/C argues on appeal that the JCC erred in (1) finding that the claimant reported her industrial accident in a timely manner under section 440.185, Florida Statutes because the claimant waited two years after her disability began to report it, (2) finding the claimant’s testimony to be credible where there were inconsistencies in her testimony, and (3) rendering its final order five months after the final hearing because the evidence had become stale as discussed in Palmieri v. NAACO, 677 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Marley Roof Tiles v. Smarr, 672 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

The claimant argues in response that (1) the claimant notified the E/C of her occupational accident in a timely manner after discovering the cause of her illness as required under section 440.185(l)(b), Florida Statutes, (2) the E/C did not preserve its argument as to credibility and the trial court’s findings as to credibility were proper under the evidence, and (3) the E/C did not preserve its argument as to the timing of the order and the order was not stale, citing Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fuchs Baking Co., 577 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

II.

Section 440.185(1), Florida Statutes (2000), requires a claimant to report an injury within thirty days after the date of, or the initial manifestation of an injury. Section 440.151(6) extends the period of time to report an occupational disease to ninety days. Section 440.185(l)(b) further provides that failure to advise an employer of an injury within thirty days after the date or initial manifestation of the injury does not bar a petition for benefits if:

The cause of the injury could not be identified without a medical opinion and the employee advised the employer within 30 days after obtaining a medical opinion indicating that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment;

(Emphasis added).

The parties agree that whether the cause of the injury could be identified without a medical opinion is a factual determination. We find competent substantial evidence in the record to support the JCC’s factual finding that the claimant gave timely notice because “there was no medical causation prior to the date [April 12, 2003] that Dr. Rothstein, an expert Hepatologist in this matter, that gave the claimant a clear and definitive opinion as to the cause and factors of her disease.”

We find no error in the JCC’s order regarding the claimant’s credibility and agree with the claimant that the E/C failed to preserve their argument that the order is stale. See Rivendell of Ft. Walton v. Petway, 833 So. 2d 292, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (stating that “[t]he issue of the staleness of the order was not raised below and, thus, was not preserved for appellate review”).

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, C.J., DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Luedke v. Play Space Servs. & Pinnacle Assurance Corp., 971 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
    …identified without a medical opinion.” § 440.185(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). “The parties agree that whether the cause of the injury could be identified without a medical opinion is a factual determination.” Polk County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Ross, 911 So. 2d 854, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In finding that the cause of Mr. Luedke’s injury could be identified without a medical opinion, the judge of compensation claims noted that Mr. Luedke admitted that, earlier in his employment with the employer, when he ha…
  • …e claim on the theory that she failed to file it in a timely manner. The judge of compensation claims ruled against Polk County, and the First District affirmed the order, requiring the payment of benefits. Polk County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Ross, 911 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Polk County then filed this action seeking a determination of which insurance carrier provided coverage for the claim. In its complaint, it explained that Fidelity provided this statutory coverage for the period from January 1,…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw