Walters v. State-DOC/Division of Risk Management
100 So. 3d 1173
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Walters, a corrections officer, was stipulated to have a heart disease satisfying the Heart-Lung presumption under §112.18(1), Fla. Stat. (2009).
- Pre-employment exam showed no heart disease; symptoms began December 2009 with chest pain and hospitalizations for heart conditions.
- Walters worked at a detention facility and allegedly contracted a stomach virus leading to viral cardiomyopathy and pericarditis.
- The State denied the claim; the JCC acknowledged the presumption but held the State rebutted it with evidence of non-work-related gastroenteritis.
- The JCC also held Walters failed to prove the virus was work-related under §440.151, and thus denied benefits; Walters appealed.
- The court ultimately held the presumption remained unrebutted and remanded for medical benefits and other heart-disease-related compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §112.18 presumption applies to Walters’ heart disease. | Walters contends the presumption applies and shifts burden. | State argues the presumption was rebutted by non-work factors. | Yes, presumption applies and controls unless rebutted. |
| Whether the State rebutted the presumption with evidence of non-occupational gastroenteritis. | Walters argues no competent evidence proves non-occupational cause. | State asserts the stomach virus caused heart disease and is non-occupational. | State failed to prove a non-occupational cause; presumption not rebutted. |
| If rebuttal failed, whether claimant must prove occupational disease under §440.151. | Not necessary while presumption stands. | If presumption fails, §440.151 controls. | Presumption remains controlling; §440.151 proof not required absent rebuttal. |
| What remedy should follow on remand. | Award medical and other benefits tied to heart disease. | Remand unnecessary if presumption rebuttable. | Remand with directions to award medical and related benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Division of Retirement, Florida Department of Administration, 372 So.2d 438 (Fla. 1979) (establishes framework for §112.18 presumption)
- Punsky v. Clay Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 18 So.3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (presumption remains unless rebutted by substantial non-industrial causes)
- Fuller v. Okaloosa Corr. Inst., 22 So.3d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (presumption is dispositive if not rebutted by medical evidence)
- Warfel, 82 So.3d 47 (Fla. 2012) (superseded by statute on other grounds; discusses non-industrial causation)
- Lentini v. City of W. Palm Beach, 980 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (recognizes issues around occupational causation and presumption)