Editor: Felicia Wymer, Partner, Pensacola Office

Author: Travis Coleman, Junior Partner, Tampa Office

Author: Katie Valley, Associate, Jacksonville Office

Joe Louis Aviles v. Orange County Board of County Commissioners/CCMSI

JCC Pitts: Orlando District                                     Order date: 12/17/2024

OJCC Case:   24-012477NPP                                  Date of Accident:  03/11/2024

JCC Order: Click Here

Briefly: Compensability / Idiopathic Injury

Summary: The claimant had a fall at work while standing on the outside steps of a Mack truck performing a diagnostic test on the truck’s engine. He reported feeling dizzy and lightheaded and, as he started to fall forward, placing his hands forward attempting to break the fall.  The claimant reportedly lost consciousness and stated that he did not remember hitting the ground or why he fell.  The accident happened four or five hours into his shift, and there were no witnesses to the fall. He was admitted to the hospital for two days, and was diagnosed with syncope and collapse, obstructive sleep apnea, and essential hypertension. The claimant filed a petition for TTD/TPD, medical treatment authorization, and compensability of multiple injuries resulting from the fall. The E/C contested the claims by asserting that there was insufficient evidence linking the alleged injuries to the workplace incident and argued the claimant’s condition stemmed from preexisting personal ailments. It was determined that the claimant had suffered a syncope episode leading up to the fall. The E/C’s expert stated that it was likely that this episode was caused by the claimant’s sleep apnea or blood pressure medication. The claimant’s expert did not give an opinion on causation. The JCC found that the E/C did not effectively prove that the claimant’s sleep apnea or hypertension was causally connected to the fall and injury. He noted that he did not find the E/C’s expert’s opinion to be persuasive, given the speculative language and not based on an accurate history of the events leading up to the fall. The JCC found that the claimant’s fall was compensable, as it occurred while engaged in employment duties, leading to an award for medical treatment and attorney fees. 

__________________________________________________________________

Demetras Melton v. Broward Co. Transit and Risk Management

JCC Lewis: Ft. Lauderdale District                                    Order date:   12/27/2024

OJCC Case:   23-024298DAL                                              Date of Accident: 06/08/2023

JCC Order: Click Here

Briefly:  Compensability / Repetitive Trauma

Summary: The Claimant alleged a left wrist injury which she claimed was a result of repeated motions using her left hand and wrist while operating a bus over seven years. More specifically, each time she stopped the bus to let the passengers in or out, she was required to engage the emergency brake, which would occur in excess of 100 times per shift. The claimant already suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome in the right wrist from a previous right wrist fracture that occurred while working for this employer. Dr. Baylis, the authorized treating physician, opined that the claimant’s left carpal tunnel symptoms were due to referred pain in the claimant’s neck. However, the IME doctor, Dr. Kinchelow, diagnosed the claimant with left carpal tunnel syndrome after an evaluation where her job description and symptomology were more thoroughly discussed. He recommended subsequent diagnostic testing to further evaluate the claimant’s carpal tunnel, median nerve, and tendinitis, including an MRI and ultrasound. The employer/carrier denied that the claimant sustained a compensable accident arising out of the course and scope of her employment and asserted that her left carpal tunnel syndrome was due to a preexisting injury/condition. The employer/carrier conceded the existence of the condition but disputed whether the claimant’s work activities were the major contributing cause. The JCC found that the claimant showed by clear and convincing evidence through unrefuted medical evidence from Dr. Kinchelow that the major contributing cause of her left hand/wrist carpal tunnel syndrome was the exposure to the repeated activities at work such that the alleged injury was found compensable. 

__________________________________________________________________

Samantha King v. Mandala Healing Center and Ascendant Commercial Insurance

JCC Johnsen: West Palm Beach District                           Order date:   01/02/2025

OJCC Case:   23-014970GJJ                                               Date of Accident: 06/07/2023

JCC Order: Click Here

Briefly:  Voluntary Limitation of Income

Summary: The Claimant was moving offices to avoid a dog that was brought into the office when her foot became stuck on a damaged floor tile, causing her to fall backward. The Claimant alleged injuries to the neck, back, and wrist. She was offered light duty accommodations, including talk-to-text functions and a reduced caseload. A few weeks after the work accident, the Claimant took a leave of absence, alleging issues with her dexterity were not being accommodated. She claimed that she received more cases when she returned to work and was under more pressure to perform. The Claimant never returned from this leave of absence to work for the employer. Three months into her leave of absence, the Claimant moved to North Carolina, where she stated that she could heal peacefully. She stated that she did not receive any communication with the Employer after a month after the injury offering her a job or a light duty job. On October 4, 2024, the claimant underwent right wrist surgery, where she was placed on a no-work status. In the claimant’s October 2023 deposition, she was asked why she had moved to North Carolina in September of 2023. She was unable to give a straight answer but stated that she was already unhappy with the employer and had been updating her resume prior to her accident. The Claimant testified that she did not go back to work for the Employer because she was engaged in correspondence with the Employer about her safety concerns, such as the broken floor, and she did not know if the safety issue was resolved. She also stated that she did not believe her work restrictions were being accommodated, and that she felt that she was required to lift heavy equipment. Despite the claimant’s failure to return from her leave of absence, the employer continued to pay the claimant’s health insurance until her employment was terminated in March 2024. Prior to the termination, the claimant’s job remained available to her.  The E/C argued that the Claimant refused suitable employment, thereby voluntary limiting her own income. Due the Claimant’s vagueness regarding the basis for her move following the work accident and the refusal to answer questions regarding same, the JCC found that the move was an unreasonable refusal of suitable employment and acted as job abandonment. Accordingly, the JCC ruled that the Claimant was not due TPD benefits from the date of job abandonment through the date her employment with the insured was terminated. According to the JCC, termination by the employer was a rescission of the prior offer of light duty employment, and that no further offer of light duty was made after termination. “Voluntary limitation of income caused by the refusal to accept a suitable job does not permanently foreclose a claimant’s right to workers’ compensation benefits.”  

__________________________________________________________________

Vazquez v. Polk County School Board/Davies Claims North America

JCC Arthur:   Tampa District                                             Order date:   1/8/2025

OJCC Case:   23-004222RAA                                 Date of Accident:    2/4/2022, 1/26/2023

JCC Order: Click Here

Briefly:  TPD/Voluntary Limitation of Income 

Summary: The dispute ripe for Final Hearing revolved around the claimant’s entitlement to TPD benefits during the school’s summer feeding program from June 17, 2024 – July 12, 2024. The Employer accommodated the claimant’s restrictions but work within those restrictions was never offered during the summer. The Employer’s testimony established that the school board is understaffed during the summer, which would require the claimant to be on full duty as there are less people around to help the claimant with tasks such as lifting. The facts established that the claimant was not at MMI, restrictions prevented her from returning to pre-accident employment, and that she did not earn 80% of her AWW for the period at issue, thus the Claimant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to TPD benefits. This shifted the burden to the E/C. The E/C argued Voluntary Limitation of Income, thus having to show that they offered employment to the claimant, within her assigned restrictions, for the applicable period, and the claimant refused that employment. No facts were established showing that the E/C offered the Claimant employment within her restrictions during the period at issue. The E/C also argued that the claimant must perform a job search, but the JCC rejected this as not required especially when the Claimant has shown her inability to earn her pre-injury wages. Thus, the JCC Ordered TPD benefits for the summer period with penalties and interest as well at attorney’s fees and costs.

__________________________________________________________________

Marcus Robinson v. ACME Barricades/CCMSI

JCC Humphries:   Jacksonville District                                         Order date:   1/10/2025

OJCC Case:   24-009904RJH                                              Date of Accident:    4/15/2024

JCC Order: Click Here

Briefly:  Indemnity/Misconduct

Summary: The Claimant was involved in an accident while attempting to change a drill bit with a co-worker. The drill accidentally engaged, resulting in the partial amputation of the Claimant’s left thumb. After surgery immediately following the accident, the Claimant was placed on a “no work” status. Approximately 10 days after the accident, the Claimant was released to return to work with restrictions. The Claimant returned to work and continued to work for the Employer until his termination on September 10, 2024. The Claimant filed a PFB for 3-days of indemnity immediately following the work accident, which the E/C denied for voluntary limitation of income. The JCC rejected this as voluntary limitation of income is not a defense to TTD benefits. As the Claimant was placed on no work status and no viable defense was offered, TTD was due for the 3-days along with penalties and interest. The E/C argued against ongoing TPD benefits from the date of the Claimant’s termination forward based on the Claimant being terminated for misconduct. The Employer alleged that the Claimant was terminated for misconduct due to integrity issues. Specifically, the Claimant abandoned his position, failed to communicate with his supervisors, created an unsafe and hazardous working environment for other employees, created fraudulent driving logs, and incurred a $25,000 loss based upon said fraudulent logs. As evidence, the E/C attempted to bring into evidence the Claimant’s personnel file including a portion of the alleged fraudulent logs. The Claimant objected based on hearsay and authenticity. After review, the JCC determined that multiple issues arose with the logs, including numbers not adding up, authenticity issues with different foremen on the job sites, and the logs clearly being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, the objections were sustained. The JCC also rejected the argument regarding job abandonment, failing to communicate with his supervisors, creating an unsafe working environment, and the alleged $25,000 loss as lacking any admissible competent evidence showing any of the above, nor did any of it rise to the level of misconduct as delineated in 440.02(27). TTD benefits were awarded for the 3-days post-accident, and ongoing TPD benefits were also awarded all with penalties and interest, attorneys fees, and costs.

__________________________________________________________________