Pearson v. Paradise Ford

951 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)

KK TAKEAWAY:

The Major Contributing Cause (MCC) standard as applied in §440.09(1)(b) applies only when a workplace accident was combined with a preexisting injury or condition that was unrelated to an employment accident.

KK TAKEAWAY:

Florida Statute §440.42(4), and not §440.09(1) (b), applies to cases involving a Claimant with injuries caused solely by multiple employment injuries with different employers.

KK TAKEAWAY:

In cases involving a Claimant with injuries caused solely by multiple employment injuries with different employers, each Employer/ Carrier is responsible for their percentage of liability as determined by a JCC.

BACKGROUND:

The Claimant filed Petitions for Benefits against two separate employers (Paradise Ford and Budget Group) that sought benefits for two work-related accidents involving injuries to his back. JCC Terlizzese found that 80% of Claimant’s condition was related to his first accident with Budget Group, and 20% was related to the second accident with Paradise Ford. Additionally, that since the second accident was not greater than 50% responsible for Claimant’s condition, that accident was not compensable. The case was appealed by the Claimant and Budget Group. On appeal, the Claimant and Budget Group asserted that the JCC’s interpretation of Florida Statute §440.09(1)(b) was erroneous. They argued that this section should be read as applying only when a Claimant’s preexisting condition did not arise in the course of employment. Thus, since the Claimant’s injuries were caused solely by employment accidents, §440.09(1)(b) is not applicable. Paradise Ford maintained its argument that §440.09(1)(b) applies to any preexisting condition or injury, no matter what source. Thus, where a Claimant’s condition is caused by the effects of a combination of two or more accidents, “only the employer/ carrier responsible for the accident which constitutes the major contributing cause of the claimant’s injuries is required to provide compensation or benefits.” The Court agreed with the Claimant and Budget Group that §440.09(1)(b) does not

apply in this case, and that §440.42(4) was controlling, as the Claimant’s injury was caused solely by multiple employment injuries with different employers. The Court based its decision partly on its interpretation of the 2003 amendments, in which the legislature intended §440.09(1)(b) “to apply only when the claimant’s need for treatment or benefits is caused by the impact of an employment accident combining with a preexisting injury or condition that is unrelated to an employment accident.” Additionally, the Court believed that the interpretation of §440.09(1)(b) to apply to case involving a Claimant with injuries caused solely by multiple employment injuries with different employers would produce “absurd” results. If applicable, then only one Employer/Carrier at most will be responsible for workers’ compensation benefits. Furthermore, in cases involving three (3) employment accidents that cause a need for compensation benefits, there could instances where no Employer/Carrier would be more than 50% responsible for the Claimant’s injuries and thus, no Employer/Carrier would be obligated to provide treatment or benefits. The Court did not believe the legislature intended for such a result. Based upon the foregoing, the Court concluded that the JCC erred in not dividing liability 80% to Budget Group/CNA and 20% to Paradise Ford/Comp Options in accordance with his findings of responsibility under §440.42(4).