Workers' Compensation
Listed below is McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver & Stern, P.A.'s workers' compensation case law database. The database dates back until 1971 and includes over 5500 workers' compensation court decisions.
To view the case summaries, select one of the general topics listed below.
B&L Services, Inc., d/b/a Gray Line of Orlando v. Coach USA f/k/a Gray Line of Orlando
791 So.2d 1138, 26 FLW D1516
Claimant suffered repetitive trauma injury resulting in
the development of carpal tunnel syndrome over a period
of time that he worked for two employers. JCC found
that the major contributing cause for the development
of the carpal tunnel syndrome was the employment
activity with the first employer. Court determined
that JCC erred in using a major contributing cause
standard for determining whether the first employer was
entitled to contribution from the second employer. JCC
found that following the claimant's employment with
employer #1, the claimant would have needed surgery for
his carpal tunnel syndrome condition but that the
claimant's employment with employer #2 did result in an
acceleration of the claimant's need for surgery.
Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, provides the
procedure for determining relative responsibilities for
a compensable accident as between multiple
employer/carriers. There is no reference in that
provision to the major contributing cause standard for
determining this liability. The determinative factor
in placing liability under Section 440.42(3), Florida
Statutes, is whether a second compensable accident
caused injury which is independent from or an
exacerbation of the first compensable accident. A
causal connection must exist between the claimant's
employment and both industrial injuries in order to
justify apportionment of liability among carriers. In
this case, since the JCC found some evidence that the
claimant's work while employed with both employers
contributed to his injuries, there was a causal
connection between the claimant's injuries and both
employments. Accordingly, both employers were liable
for a portion of the claimant's disability and employer
#1 could seek contribution from employer #2. In
determining the apportionment between two
employers/carriers, the JCC must also apportion
attorney's fees.
Section 440.1925(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits the
employer/carrier from obtaining an IME to render an
opinion on a permanent impairment rating when the
employer/carrier in the first instance selected the
treating physician. An expert medical advisor
requested by the JCC can testify as to the impairment
rating in accordance with 440.1925(4), Florida
Statutes, and such evidence constitutes competent
substantial evidence to support the ultimate impairment
rating finding.
Concurring and dissenting opinion filed in response to
majority opinion. Dissenting judge opined that since
second employer's employment was not the major
contributing cause of the claimant's injuries, the
second employer would have been relieved of any
responsibility to pay workers' compensation benefits if
a claim had been filed directly by the claimant against
the second employer. This same result should occur in
a claim for contribution by another employer/carrier.
