Unisource Administrators v. Bridges

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Unisource Administrators v. Bridges

914 So. 2d 457, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16465, 2005 WL 2649191

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 18, 2005·No. No. 1D04-4704·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 112.18(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) (“Any condition ... of any ... law enforcement officer ... caused by ... heart disease ... resulting in ... disability ... shall be presumed to have been ... suffered in the line of duty unless the contrary be shown by competent evidence!,] ... [if the pre-employment physical] examination failed to reveal any evidence of any such condition.”); City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 902 So.2d 942, 943-44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (rejecting contention that Sledge v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 497 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), requires permanent disability or termination for the presumption to arise); City of Miami v. Thomas, 657 So.2d 927, 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“We ... reject the [458]*458City’s argument that ... section 112.18[ ] was intended to be limited to permanent disability, so that the presumption would not apply to a temporary disability, as experienced by this claimant.”).

BENTON, PADOVANO, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 112.18(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) (“Any condition ... of any ... law enforcement officer ... caused by ... heart disease ... resulting in ... disability ... shall be presumed to have been ... suffered in the line of duty unless the contrary be shown by competent evidence!,] ... [if the pre-employment physical] examination failed to reveal any evidence of any such condition.”); City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 902 So.2d 942, 943-44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (rejecting contention that Sledge v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 497 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), requires permanent disability or termination for the presumption to arise); City of Miami v. Thomas, 657 So.2d 927, 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“We ... reject the [458]*458City’s argument that ... section 112.18[ ] was intended to be limited to permanent disability, so that the presumption would not apply to a temporary disability, as experienced by this claimant.”).

BENTON, PADOVANO, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Unisource Administrators v. Bridges, 914 So. 2d 457, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16465, 2005 WL 2649191 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

914 So. 2d 457 (Unisource Administrators v. Bridges) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related