Florida Workers' Compensation Lawyer & Attorney : David A. McCranie : Serving Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, St Petersburg

I've written here and here about the quantum and quality of proof which a governmental employer must present in order to rebut the presumption of compensability for heart disease, etc., afforded to firefighters and other law enforcement personnel by §112.18(1), Fla. Stat.  In Punsky v. Clay County Sheriff's Office, decided on 7/21/2008, the First DCA added to the confusion on this issue.

 

Punsky reversed an order in which the JCC's had concluded that the employer had presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. That evidence included testimony - accepted by the JCC - that because of various "risk factors" like high cholesterol, smoking, and obesity the claimant would have developed heart disease and had a heart attack no matter what his occupation had been.  In other words, the JCC was persuaded that Punsky's medical problems had nothing to do with his job as a sheriff's deputy.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Back in July, I wrote here about Raul Saldana, a corrections officer employed by the City of Miami, who suffered from hypertension and heart disease.  He filed a claim for compensation and medical care under the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, relying upon §112.18(1), Fla. Stat., the "Heart-Lung" bill, to establish the compensability of his condition.  But §112.18(1) only affords a presumption of compensability for such conditions; the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the condition is not job-related.  Here, the JCC found that the presumption of compensability had been rebutted by evidence of: (1) a genetic predisposition to hypertension; (2) onset of hypertension prior to his employment with the employer; (3) a failure properly treat his hypertension; and (4) development of hypertensive heart disease resulting from untreated hypertension.  You can read the JCC's order here.

 

Saldana appealed the JCC's order to the First DCA, but also filed this petition for writ of prohibition in the Florida Supreme Court in which he challenged the First DCA's jurisdiction to hear his appeal.  The supreme court rejected his challenge in this order.

 

Now the First DCA has rejected his appeal, concluding that the employer presented evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption.  Saldana v. Miami-Dade County.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks