Cases

Under the "tipsy coachman" rule, when the trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons, that decision will be upheld on appeal if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.  In this case, the judge's decision denying apportionment was upheld on appeal but for reasons different than those given by the JCC in denying apportionment.

The claimant had argued that the legislature did not intend to eliminate the long standing principle that medical benefits and temporary indemnity benefits were not apportionable when the 2003 amendments were made to Section 440.15(5), Florida Statutes.  On appeal, this argument was rejected.  The court specifically determined that the 2003 changes in the law allows for the apportionment of all indemnity benefits both temporary and permanent and all medical benefits both before and after MMI.  When the legislature makes a substantial and material change in the language of a statute, it is presumed to have intended some specific objective or alteration of the law unless a contrary indication is clear.  The changes in Section 440.15(5), Florida Statutes, specifically provides that all benefits and medical are subject to the apportionment principle.

The JCC had denied apportionment of temporary benefits and medical because of the fact that there had been no permanency evidence as to the percentage of permanent impairment related to the preexisting problems suffered by the claimant and the permanency associated with the accident.  However, the court determined that this was error since the referenced provision in Section 440.15(5)(b), Florida Statutes, only related to the apportionment of permanent benefits and not temporary/medical.  Since the issue in this case was the apportionment of medical benefits and temporary indemnity benefits, as opposed to permanent indemnity benefits, it was not required to present evidence of a permanent impairment or disability attributable to the accident in question and the preexisting condition.

Apportionment however is not permitted when the preexisting condition or injury is unrelated to an employment accident.  If the preexisting condition is work related, the employer/carrier may find a remedy for the payment of a preexisting condition in accordance with Section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes, which governs the division of liability between employers where, as in this instance, two or more workplace injures combine to cause the claimant's need for benefits.  Accordingly, to avail itself of the apportionment defense under Section 440.15(5)(b), Florida Statutes, the employer/carrier must present evidence of the extent of the claimant's preexisting condition resulting from non-occupational causes.  Concurring opinion.