Florida’s Supreme Court Holds Workplace Shooting Compensable
- Florida’s Supreme Court held last week that a rental car worker who was shot at least seven times in a 2019 workplace attack was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, reversing a lower court’s ruling.
- A general manager for Value Car Rental at the Orlando Airport Holiday Inn, was shot at least seven times in a 2019 workplace attack, suffering severe injuries to his arms, leg, stomach and brain. He later had several strokes, lost a kidney and part of his vision.
- He filed a claim for workers’ compensation medical and wage-replacement benefits and Boca Raton-based Normandy Insurance, the company’s workers’ compensation carrier, denied the claim, arguing the shooting was unrelated to his job, an assertion a lower court sided with.
- The state Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that injuries from a third-party assault can be compensable if the claimant establishes work-relatedness, and found Bouayad met that burden by showing his job’s late-night hours, high-crime location, and poor lighting increased his risk of assault.
High Court Upholds Finding That Worker’s Condition Deteriorated to PTD
- The Kentucky Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding an administrative law judge’s award of permanent total disability benefits to an equipment operator injured while working for Muhlenberg County Coal Company, after his condition worsened following an original 2021 award.
- The worker, originally found capable of light or sedentary work with a combined 17% whole person impairment for his left hip and lumbar spine injuries, filed a motion to reopen his claim in December 2023, arguing his condition had deteriorated to the point of total occupational disability.
- Muhlenberg County Coal argued the medical opinions relied upon by the ALJ did not establish a worsening of his condition since the original decision, but the Supreme Court held that a claimant need not show an increased impairment rating to prove worsening and that showing objective medical evidence of greater functional loss or derangement can suffice.
- The Court found the ALJ properly relied on multiple medical opinions along with Rodgers’ credible testimony about his inability to work, and ruled that conflicting evidence of possible improvement did not compel a different result, since resolving such conflicts falls within the ALJ’s discretion.