PIZZA HUT AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD PROCTOR, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Major Contributing Cause Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order which granted the claimant’s request for a change in physicians and a second medical opinion. In challenging this award the employer/carrier present several issues on appeal, each of which we find to be without merit. In addition, while the employer/carrier refer to the major contributing cause standard in section 440.09(1)(b), Florida Statutes, that statutory provision does not apply here as this case involves two industrial accidents and injuries without any preexisting injury or condition attributable to a nonindustrial cause. As explained in Pearson v. Paradise Ford, 951 So. 2d 12, (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), section 440.09(1)(b) applies when a claimant’s need for treatment or benefits is caused by the impact of an industrial accident combining with a preexisting injury or condition which is unrelated to an industrial accident. .
The appealed order is affirmed.
BARFIELD, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Staffmark and Avizent/Frank Gates v. Merrell, 43 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…38. The phrase has been defined, however, and later applied in the context of the “major contributing cause” provision of section 440.09(1)(b), Florida Statutes. See Pearson v. Paradise Ford, 951 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Pizza Hut v. Proctor, 955 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In Pearson, this court defined “preexisting condition,” for purposes of section 440.09(1)(b), to mean “a preexisting injury or condition that is unrelated to an employment accident.” 951 So. 2d at 17. This definition was subseq…
-
Teco Energy, Inc. v. Williams, 234 So. 3d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…he listing of "Affirmative Claims and Defenses.” . If the preexisting condition is due to an industrial accident, it does not qualify under section 440.09(1)(b). See Pearson v. Paradise Ford, 951 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Pizza Hut v. Proctor, 955 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). . Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.113(2)(a), states: In pretrial stipulations and at any pretrial hearing, the parties shall: (a) State the claims, defenses, and the date of filing of each petition for benefits to be adjudicated at t…
-
Bysczynski v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 53 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…of). Under these facts, the JCC erred by including Claimant’s normal, aged condition as a contributing, legal cause of Claimant’s need for surgery and then applying the major contributing cause standard to deny the surgery. See Pizza Hut v. Proctor, 955 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Pearson v. Paradise Ford, 951 So. 2d 12, 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (stating “it seems evident that the legislature intended [440.09](1)(b) to apply only when the claimant’s need for treatment or benefits is caused by the impact of…
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
- Pearson v. Paradise Ford & Comp Options Ins., 951 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)