City of Tavares and Gallagher Bassett etc. v. Billy Harper
230 So. 3d 918
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Claimant, a law enforcement officer, had a 2007 pre-employment physical showing a single elevated blood pressure reading of 140/60 but the report described findings as normal and did not diagnose hypertension.
- From 2001 through 2015 medical records contained no other elevated blood pressure readings or hypertension diagnosis.
- In 2016 claimant experienced two episodes of severely elevated blood pressure, was diagnosed with hypertension, treated with medication, and sought compensability under Florida’s Heart‑Lung presumption (§112.18(1)).
- The Employer/Servicing Agent (E/SA) argued the 2007 elevated reading constituted “evidence” of hypertension and therefore precluded the statutory presumption.
- Both IMEs agreed a single elevated reading can reflect non‑hypertensive causes (e.g., “white coat” syndrome); Dr. Perloff (claimant’s IME) testified it was unlikely the 2007 reading represented true hypertension.
- The JCC found the 2007 single reading did not show evidence of hypertension and applied the statutory presumption; the district court affirmed, finding competent substantial evidence supported that finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single elevated pre‑employment BP reading is “evidence” of hypertension that defeats the §112.18(1) presumption | Single reading is not diagnostic; could be transient or "white coat"; presumption should apply | Any evidence, including a single elevated reading, defeats the presumption under the statute's plain language | Affirmed: single isolated reading did not constitute evidence of the condition (CSE supports JCC) |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cty. Fire Servs. v. Taaffe, 27 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (pre‑employment finding of hypertension defeats presumption)
- Miami‑Dade Cty. v. Davis, 26 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (pre‑employment exam showing heart disease precludes presumption)
- Talpesh v. Village of Royal Palm Beach, 994 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (pre‑employment exam must reveal the specifically listed condition to defeat presumption)
- Benniefield v. City of Lakeland, 109 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (standard of review: de novo for statutory interpretation; CSE for factual findings)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (clear statutory language controls interpretation)