ALTMAN CONTRACTORS v. Gibson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ALTMAN CONTRACTORS v. Gibson

63 So. 3d 802, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6055, 2011 WL 1601441

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 2011

Docket1D10-3008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 So. 3d 802 (ALTMAN CONTRACTORS v. Gibson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ALTMAN CONTRACTORS v. Gibson, 63 So. 3d 802, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6055, 2011 WL 1601441 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims that finds Claimant’s mold exposure injury compensable. We agree with the E/C’s argument that reversal is warranted because no record evidence establishes the levels of mold to which Claimant was exposed in the workplace, a statutory condition imposed by section 440.02(1), Florida Statutes (2005). See Matrix Employee Leasing v. Pierce, 985 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). We also agree that the JCC erred in substituting the causation standard expressed in Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), for the more exacting statutory causation standard for mold exposure claims enacted by the Legislature. See Mangold v. Rainforest Golf Sports Ctr., 675 So.2d 689, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“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.”). Because we agree with these arguments, we REVERSE the order on appeal, and need not reach the remaining issues raised by the E/C.

HAWKES and MARSTILLER, JJ„ concurs; WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims that finds Claimant’s mold exposure injury compensable. We agree with the E/C’s argument that reversal is warranted because no record evidence establishes the levels of mold to which Claimant was exposed in the workplace, a statutory condition imposed by section 440.02(1), Florida Statutes (2005). See Matrix Employee Leasing v. Pierce, 985 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). We also agree that the JCC erred in substituting the causation standard expressed in Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), for the more exacting statutory causation standard for mold exposure claims enacted by the Legislature. See Mangold v. Rainforest Golf Sports Ctr., 675 So.2d 689, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“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.”). Because we agree with these arguments, we REVERSE the order on appeal, and need not reach the remaining issues raised by the E/C.

HAWKES and MARSTILLER, JJ„ concurs; WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 3d 802, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6055, 2011 WL 1601441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altman-contractors-v-gibson-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack