Westbrook v. Division of Retirement

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Westbrook v. Division of Retirement

699 So. 2d 813, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10736, 1997 WL 590088

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1997

DocketNo. 97-574

StatusPublished

This text of 699 So. 2d 813 (Westbrook v. Division of Retirement) 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

Westbrook v. Division of Retirement, 699 So. 2d 813, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10736, 1997 WL 590088 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Dorothy J. Westbrook appeals from a final order of the State Retirement Commission denying her request for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. We reverse and remand with directions.

The test for an in-line-of-duty disability award is whether an injury or illness, arising out of and in the actual performance of a duty required by a member’s employment, was the substantial producing cause or an aggravating cause of a member’s total and permanent disability. Blanton v. Division of Retirement, 480 So.2d 134, 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

In this case, appellant, a school custodian, had preexisting rheumatoid arthritis and epi-condylitis. In 1993, while in the course of her employment, she was attacked and karate kicked by a student. Based on the testimony of Dr. Schueler, the Commission found that 50% of appellant’s elbow impairment was preexisting and 50% “was aggravated by the kick.” The Commission noted, however, that Dr. Schueler “did not attribute the 1993 karate kick as the major cause of Mrs. Westbrook’s right elbow difficulty.” The Commission found entitlement to total permanent disability retirement, but denied in-line-of-duty benefits.

In the order under review, the Commission apparently focused solely upon whether the kick to claimant’s elbow was the major cause of her total and permanent disability, and thus failed to analyze the issue of whether the kick was an “aggravating cause”. Blan-ton. In its factual findings, however, the Commission recognized the testimony of claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Schueler that established both a work-related aggravation of a preexisting condition and a causal relationship between claimant’s work-related injuries and her status as a totally and permanently disabled employee. The conclusions of law inexplicably ignore the findings of fact and deny in-line-of-duty benefits with no explanation. Because the evidence accepted by the Commission cannot support the denial of in-line-of-duty benefits, we reverse and remand with directions to the Commission to award the same. Id.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Dorothy J. Westbrook appeals from a final order of the State Retirement Commission denying her request for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. We reverse and remand with directions.

The test for an in-line-of-duty disability award is whether an injury or illness, arising out of and in the actual performance of a duty required by a member’s employment, was the substantial producing cause or an aggravating cause of a member’s total and permanent disability. Blanton v. Division of Retirement, 480 So.2d 134, 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

In this case, appellant, a school custodian, had preexisting rheumatoid arthritis and epi-condylitis. In 1993, while in the course of her employment, she was attacked and karate kicked by a student. Based on the testimony of Dr. Schueler, the Commission found that 50% of appellant’s elbow impairment was preexisting and 50% “was aggravated by the kick.” The Commission noted, however, that Dr. Schueler “did not attribute the 1993 karate kick as the major cause of Mrs. Westbrook’s right elbow difficulty.” The Commission found entitlement to total permanent disability retirement, but denied in-line-of-duty benefits.

In the order under review, the Commission apparently focused solely upon whether the kick to claimant’s elbow was the major cause of her total and permanent disability, and thus failed to analyze the issue of whether the kick was an “aggravating cause”. Blan-ton. In its factual findings, however, the Commission recognized the testimony of claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Schueler that established both a work-related aggravation of a preexisting condition and a causal relationship between claimant’s work-related injuries and her status as a totally and permanently disabled employee. The conclusions of law inexplicably ignore the findings of fact and deny in-line-of-duty benefits with no explanation. Because the evidence accepted by the Commission cannot support the denial of in-line-of-duty benefits, we reverse and remand with directions to the Commission to award the same. Id.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 So. 2d 813, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10736, 1997 WL 590088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westbrook-v-division-of-retirement-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack