Cases

In accordance with Section 112.18, Florida Statutes, only hypertension that is arterial or cardiovascular qualifies for the presumption of compensability.  In this case, the claimant was diagnosed with essential hypertension.  Unrefuted medical opinion testimony indicated that essential hypertension is the same condition as arterial hypertension.  The court had previously determined that essential hypertension was not covered by the presumption.  However, essential hypertension is not as a matter of law not covered by the presumption.  Such a determination is based on the facts of a case.  Where a claimant seeking to rely on Section 112.18, Florida Statutes, produces no evidence that his hypertension is arterial or cardiovascular, the claimant is not entitled to the presumption of compensability.

A JCC is permitted to reject even unrefuted medical testimony if he gives a reason for doing so in order to allow for appellate review.  In this case, the JCC rejected medical opinion because of the JCC's misunderstanding of the case law that essential hypertension is, as a matter of law, not arterial or cardiovascular.  Such rejection of unrefuted testimony was deemed error in this case.