Hillsborough County Sch. Bd. v. WilliamsHillsborough County Sch. Bd. v. Williams
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and Poe Risk Management Services, Inc., Appellants,
v.
Sharon WILLIAMS, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
*853 Stephen M. Barbas of Mitcham, Weed, Barbas, Allen & Morgan, Tampa, for appellants.
William H. Yanger, Jr. of Yanger & Yanger, Tampa, for appellee.
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
The E/C appeal the Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC's) finding that claimant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment. We remand for further disposition.
Claimant is a Hillsborough County school bus driver whose duties include cleaning the bus. In her July 10, 1989 deposition claimant recounted that on January 25, 1989, she was cleaning the bus, picking up paper off the floor, and when she reached to pick up one particular piece of paper she felt a pulling in her back. She said the paper was in front of her in the aisle. During this deposition she did not mention any impact associated with her injury. The details of the bus cleaning incident related by claimant during her deposition were similar to the details Doctors Brewer and Murphy recalled claimant related to them when they asked her about the history of her back pain. Claimant did not tell her doctors that she considered her back pain to be related to any impact. At hearing, however, claimant testified that she was picking up paper at the front of the bus near the glove compartment and when she straightened up she struck her back on the "rod of the bus."
As a general rule,
for an injury to arise out of and in the course of one's employment, [1] there must be some causal connection between the injury and the employment or [2] it must have had its origin in some risk incidental to or connected with the employment or that [3] it flowed from it as a natural consequence. Another definition widely approved is that [4] the injury must occur within the period of the employment, *854 at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental to it.
Hill v. Gregg, Gibson & Gregg, Inc.,
However, as the E/C argue, the JCC did not address evidence in the record that claimant had a preexisting, idiopathic[1] condition. Dr. Murphy testified that the CAT scan revealed slight bulging of the L5-S1 level which he said was degenerative in nature. Dr. Murphy also opined that claimant's condition was possibly related to trauma; but bending over to pick up a piece of paper, he considered, is the lowest level of normal daily physical activity. In his order, the JCC refers to Dr. Murphy's finding that claimant had a slightly bulged disc but he makes no reference to Dr. Murphy's opinion that such was the result of a degenerative condition. Claimant urges us to assume that the JCC's failure to discuss this medical opinion constitutes a factual finding on the JCC's part that the claimant did not have an idiopathic condition. We cannot make such an assumption where there is no medical evidence to support it. The assumption we make is that the JCC failed to discuss Dr. Murphy's degenerative disease opinion either because he neglected to consider it or because he did consider it and he tacitly rejected it. But even assuming the JCC considered and rejected Dr. Murphy's opinion on this point, he would have nevertheless been required to offer a sufficient reason for doing so because there is no medical evidence in the record that refutes Dr. Murphy's opinion. Blocker v. Ardmore Farms,
The E/C argue that claimant failed to prove a causal relationship between her physical condition and the bus cleaning incident. We do not reach that issue because informed analysis of the notion "arising out of the course and scope of employment" is dependent upon an initial determination on the existence vel non of an idiopathic condition. "It is settled that when an employee brings to his job some idiopathic condition, before the injury may be found compensable, the employee must demonstrate that it resulted from an exertion or strain beyond that which he normally encountered, in his non-working life." Baker Mobiles of Florida v. O'Neil,
Accordingly, we remand this case for a determination of whether claimant suffers *855 from an idiopathic condition and for further findings as the JCC may deem necessary.
JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
NOTES
Notes
[1] Idiopathy 1. A disease of unknown origin or cause; a primary disease. 2. A disease for which no cause is known. The American Heritage Dictionary 654 (New College ed. 1982).