Case Law Update October 2023
Updated 10-30-23
| Normandy Insurance Co. V. Bouayad/Value Car Rental, ___ So.3d__(Fla.1st DCA 10/20/23) Motion for Rehearing (Bill Rogner) The DCA issued a denial of the Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing. In August, the DCA vacated the JCC’s finding that a workplace shooting arose out of employment, but certified to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance: NOTWITHSTANDING STROTHER V. MORRISON CAFETERIA, 383 SO. 2D 623 (FLA. 1980), WHEN AN ACT OF A THIRD-PARTY TORTFEASOR IS THE SOLE CAUSE OF AN INJURY TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, CAN THE TORTFEASOR’S ACT SATISFY THE OCCUPATIONAL CAUSATION ELEMENT, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 440.02(36), FLORIDA STATUTES, NECESSARY FOR COMPENSABILITY UNDER THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW? The Florida Supreme Court has not accepted jurisdiction at this time. The one-sentence denial of the Motion for Rehearing was followed by 35 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions discussing decisional uniformity, precedent and the arising-out-of element of causation. Click here to view Opinion Waffle House/Brentwood Services v. Haselden, ___So.3d___(Fla. 1st DCA 10/4/23) Compensability/Arising out of The DCA reversed the JCC’s finding that the claimant’s injuries were either due to working an extended shift or due to an unsuccessful attempt by a manager to alleviate the claimant’s back pain. The claimant experienced back pain after an almost 18-hour double shift as a grill operator. It was not established who came up with the idea, but his manager attempted to manipulate/pop the claimant’s back in an attempt to relieve his pain. That effort failed. The claimant briefly tried to return to work and he was later terminated. The claimant sought benefits alleging the manager’s actions caused his back injury, which the E/C denied. The claimant’s IME testified that despite three prior left knee surgeries with left foot drop, the manager’s actions were the MCC of his HNP. The E/C IME testified there was insufficient evidence that the manipulation was the MCC of the injury. The JCC awarded compensability and benefits finding the MCC of the injury was either (1) the work performed during the double shift, or (2) the manager’s attempted effort to relieve the claimant’s pain. The DCA noted it is the claimant’s burden to prove the injury arose out of the work performed, and that it has its origin in risk incident to or connected to employment, or that it flowed as a natural consequence. They held the JCC erred in finding compensability due to the lengthy shift, finding such would have had to be plead as a repetitive trauma claim, which was neither plead nor proven by the claimant by clear and convincing evidence. Nor did he prove compensability under Festa. They also reversed as to the manipulation theory, noting that Chapter 440 covers injuries caused by work, not merely occurring at work. The injury did not flow from a natural consequence of work. The opinion states the manager’s manipulation was done not to place the claimant back into his work duties, but to try and alleviate his pain at the end of his shift. Click here to view Opinion |