VALERIE WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
BROADVIEW ASSISTED LIVING AND CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., APPELLEES
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 workers' compensation appeal where the court reversed the denial of benefits for a receptionist's rotator cuff injury sustained in a workplace fall. The court held that where an employee is engaged in a work-related activity and there are no competing causes for the injury, the employee satisfies the occupational causation requirement without additional evidence of major contributing cause.
Yes. The court held that where an employee is actively engaged in a work-related activity and there are no competing causes for the accident or injury, the employee satisfies the major contributing cause requirement without additional evidence, and thus meets the burden of proving occupational causation.
[1] In workers' compensation cases, a claimant's burden to prove occupational causation is satisfied when there are no competing causes for the accident and injury.
[2] When a claimant has no pre-existing conditions contributing to an accident or injury, the claimant is not required to present additional evidence to establish that the wo…
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“in the absence of any evidence which could support a finding that there were competing causes of Claimant's accidental injuries, the JCC erred in ruling that his injuries were not compensable”
Establishes the Caputo standard that without competing causes, an employee satisfies the major contributing cause requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValerie Walker, a receptionist, was asked to drop off a package at UPS. She retrieved the package from her car and gave it to a UPS driver who arrived…
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 Occupational Causation cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant argues the Judge of Compensation (JCC) erred in finding she failed to sustain her burden of proof under section 440.02(32), Florida Statutes (2009), regarding “occupational causation” of her left shoulder injury. For the reasons that follow, we agree and reverse the order denying benefits.
Claimant, a receptionist for the Employer, was requested to drop off a package for shipping at UPS and had placed it in her car in anticipation of doing so. When a UPS driver arrived at the Employer’s *943place of business, Claimant left her desk, went to her car, retrieved the package, and gave it to the driver. As she was returning to her desk, she turned a corner in the hallway and, as found by the JCC, “ ‘felt her right foot slip’ from under her.” It is undisputed that Claimant sustained a left rotator cuff tear as a result of her fall and had no history of prior problems with her left shoulder. The JCC found that Claimant had no pre-existing conditions that may have caused the fall. Relying on Duval County School Board v. Golly, 867 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Hernando County v. Dokoupil, 667 So.2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the JCC denied com-pensability because “claimant’s accidental injury on the employer’s premises did not arise out of her employment because her work activity at the time of the incident was not the major contributing cause of her fall or injury.”
The JCC’s reliance on these cases was error; neither applies to the facts now before us, as both involved situations wherein the claimants had pre-existing conditions which contributed to the accident or the injury. In Golly, the fall itself was caused by a medical condition — seizure and syncopal episode — not related to the workplace. 867 So.2d at 491-92. In Dokoupil, the injury was caused by the claimant’s pre-existing osteoporosis. 667 So.2d at 275-76. As such, it was necessary for the Golly and Dokoupil claimants to establish that “the employment itself created the hazard of the risk.” Dokoupil, 667 So.2d at 276.
In the instant case, by contrast, because neither the accident nor the injury was in any way impacted by a pre-existing condition, Claimant’s burden to prove occupational causation was that as set out in our recent opinion in Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, 93 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We determined in Caputo that “in the absence of any evidence which could support a finding that there were competing causes of Claimant’s accidental injuries, the JCC erred in ruling that his injuries were not compensable.... [I]t is undisputed that the JCC found that Claimant had no pre-existing conditions which may have caused Claimant to fall. In the absence of competing causes of Claimant’s accident injuries, Claimant satisfied the major contributing cause requirement. ...” Id. at 1099. See also Lanham v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 868 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that if “there was only one cause of claimant’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.”).
Here, it was not disputed that Claimant was actively engaged in a work-related activity at the time of the accident. Thus, the only remaining question was whether that activity was the major contributing cause of the accident and resulting injury. Because there were no competing causes of the accident and injury, Claimant’s work activity was de facto the major cause. Consequently, the JCC erred in finding that Claimant failed to establish that work performed within her employment caused her left shoulder injury. Accordingly, the order denying compensability is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THOMAS, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…irst instance. We acknowledge earlier decisions from our Court where there was but one occupational cause and where the claimant was relieved of the burden of presenting evidence of major contributing cause. See Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living, 95 So. 3d 942, 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Because there were no competing causes of the accident and injury, Claimant’s work activity was de facto the major cause.”) (emphasis supplied); Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, 93 So. 3d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (…1 / 2
-
Ross v. Charlotte Cnty. Pub. Schs. & Emp'rs Mut., Inc., 100 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ine to comment on Claimant’s second issue on appeal. Neither the JCC nor the parties had the benefit of this court’s recent decisions in Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, 93 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), and Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living, 95 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), two cases that clarify the proper legal analysis to be used where an employee suffers an unexplained fall in the workplace. In Ca-puto, this court (citing to earlier precedent on the subject) explained: When the E/C [Employer/C…
-
City OF Jacksonville/City of Jacksonville Risk Mgmt. v. Ratliff, 217 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…DCA 2007). If, in order to satisfy its rebuttal burden under a section 112.18 claim, the E/C must submit medical evidence that “the” or “all” causation factors are non-industrial in order, MCC is extraneous. See Walker v. Broadview Assisted Living, 95 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, 93 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Proctor. It matters not the percentage of responsibility assigned to one or more of the non-industrial causation factors. For example, assume a medical exper…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hernando Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Servs. v. Dokoupil, 667 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- 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)
- Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits/Alternative Serv. Concepts, Inc., 93 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Golly, 867 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)