Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Custodian can't prove employment caused his wipeout

In Florida, a worker's failure to pinpoint why or where he fell at work can make it difficult for him to show that his employment caused his injuries.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Pla v. Orange County, 19 FLWCLB 34 (Fla. JCC, Orlando 2012).

Ruling: A Florida judge of compensation claims held that a worker was not entitled to compensation for the injuries he sustained when he fell at work.

What it means: In Florida, a worker's failure to pinpoint why or where he fell at work can make it difficult for him to show that his employment caused his injuries.

Summary: A custodian fell while walking from his assigned work location to the check-in room. He claimed that he felt something like water and then slipped and fell. He landed on his right hip. His supervisor testified that just after the incident, he looked for any foreign objects as the source of the fall but could not locate any. An expert medical advisor opined that the custodian suffered from preexisting neurological conditions, which led him to have a slip-and-fall injury. The JCC denied benefits.

The JCC noted that the claimant had memory problems, so he gave lesser weight to the custodian's testimony. Also, the hospital medical records reflected a history of a fall but also that the custodian did not know whether he tripped or blacked out. The custodian could not determine exactly why he fell. The JCC concluded that he fell because of an unknown cause.

The JCC went on to find that the custodian failed to prove that the employment exposed him to conditions that would substantially contribute to an increased risk of injury and to which he would not normally be exposed during his nonemployment life.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

May 17, 2012

Copyright 2012© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.