217 So. 3d 200
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Claimant became a certified correctional officer on January 6, 2010 after a trainee period and brief light-duty work; he suffered a myocardial infarction while asleep at home on April 19, 2010, about three months after certification.
- Claimant first asserted entitlement under Florida’s heart-lung statute (§112.18) in December 2014; the JCC found the claim timely but the district court did not resolve timeliness on appeal.
- Claimant’s medical submissions: a records-only IME (Dr. Borzak) could not determine causation; the E/C’s examining IME (Dr. Pedone) opined to a reasonable medical certainty that claimant’s atherosclerosis and MI were caused by non-occupational risk factors (longstanding heavy smoking, age, family history, obesity, dysglycemia).
- An EMA (Dr. Pianko) concluded the heart attack was predominantly work-related, but his opinion rested on two flawed bases: (1) an inaccurate factual premise that claimant had worked as a corrections officer for years before the MI, and (2) reliance on Kales articles about police/firefighters (impermissible bolstering) and unspecified expert conversations.
- The E/C moved to exclude/strike the EMA under Daubert and §90.702; the court found the EMA unreliable for lack of accurate factual foundation and improper bolstering, and held the E/C successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of occupational causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant’s heart attack is compensable under §112.18 presumption | Junod invoked the statutory presumption that heart disease in covered officers is accidental and work-related | E/C argued they rebutted the presumption with competent medical evidence of non-occupational causation | Reversed: E/C rebutted presumption; claimant not entitled to benefits |
| Admissibility and weight of EMA opinion | EMA (Pianko) concluded occupational causation; JCC relied on EMA as resolving medical conflict | E/C contended EMA was inadmissible/unreliable under Daubert/§90.702 and improperly bolstered | EMA excluded as unreliable: it lacked accurate factual foundation and relied on improper bolstering; could not support JCC’s finding |
| Sufficiency of medical evidence to prove occupational causation | Junod relied on EMA and statutory presumption (claimant offered no independent competent causation opinion) | E/C offered an examining IME (Pedone) providing causation to reasonable medical certainty attributed to non-occupational risk factors | No competent, substantial evidence of occupational causation; JCC’s finding reversed |
| Whether EMA’s reliance on epidemiological studies concerning police/firefighters was permissible | Junod (via EMA) treated police/firefighter data as analogous to correctional officers | E/C argued treating those studies as dispositive for a corrections officer without supporting literature or proper foundation is improper bolstering/hearsay | Court held reliance improper under §90.706 and Linn; EMA’s use of Kales articles and unspecified consultations rendered opinion incompetent |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuller v. Okaloosa Corr. Inst., 22 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (discussing burden and tenure contexts under heart-lung presumption)
- City of Jacksonville Fire & Rescue Dep’t v. Battle, 148 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (background on long-tenure applications of heart-lung presumption)
- Punsky v. Clay Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 18 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA) (On Rehearing En Banc) (describing burdens when claimant offers additional competent evidence of occupational causation)
- Caldwell v. Div. of Ret., 372 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1979) (holding presumption may be rebutted by medical evidence showing specific non-occupational cause)
- Linn v. Fossum, 946 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2006) (prohibiting expert bolstering by referring to non-testifying experts or treatises)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (governing admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)
- U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Henson, 823 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2002) (confirming Florida Evidence Code applies in workers’ compensation proceedings)
- Giaimo v. Fla. Autosport, Inc., 154 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirming Daubert’s applicability in workers’ compensation proceedings)