Toxic Exposure

I’ve written before about the dangers of denying an accident took place in the course and scope of employment.  Such a denial allows removes the exclusive remedy defense to an Employer and allows an injured worker to proceed with a tort action. 

While researching for a client, I found a case decided this past March that is based on the same principle.  But, in this case, the Employer never reported the accident to its Carrier after the injured workers reported their injuries.  This is a big no-no in and of itself, but considering the wider consequences an Employer is crazy to even think to take this position.

More after the jump. . . (more…)

One key in defending workers’ comp claims is to properly assess your medical evidence.  Without it, you have little chance for success. 

So, it is paramount for claims professionals to understand what an “expert” can testify to and what will be accepted by at Judge.   Because. if they are not a medical expert, the testimony is practically worthless. (more…)

In what is certainly a blow to toxic exposure cases, the First DCA, in Matrix Employee Leasing/FCIC v. Pierce, reversed a JCC order finding Claimant’s chronic obstructive pulminary disease condition to be compensable.  Claimant relied on § 440.02(1) to prove her claim.  The Court found no competent, substantial evidence to support the JCC’s finding that clear and convincing evidence established that claimant’s disease was caused by exposure to specific harmful chemicals at the levels to which she was exposed


What is key in the Pierce decision is that the E/C presented no evidence at Final Hearing and Claimant proffered expert testimony from her IME.  In essence, the Court limited what can be acceptable evidence in just trying to prove a prima facie case.