The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Statutes (2012), to his subsequent intervening accident for which he sought coverage under subsection 440.092 . . . receiving remedial treatment at the time of his motor vehicle accident pursuant to Florida Statutes 440.092 . . . The JCC erred, however, in then reading subsections 440.092(2), (3), (4), and (5) to “require an injury . . . Subsections 440.092(2), (3), and (4) do involve circumstances where the injury “arises out of’ work-related . . . Because subsection 440.092(5) is silent on any reporting requirement, we must look to section 440.19, . . .
. . . Subsection 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[a]n injury suffered while going to or . . .
. . . 440.091(1), Florida Statutes, or non-compensable because he was “going to or coming from” work under 440.092 . . . by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer.” § 440.092 . . . The employer/carrier argued that that section 440.092(2) applies because it is an exception to and more . . . Stated differently, it views section 440.092(2) as precluding a finding of compensability if an officer . . . suffers an injury while going to or coming from work, the only two exceptions being those in 440.092 . . .
. . . In addition, section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (2010), provides: “An employee that is required to . . .
. . . Because section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2009), provides that an injury suffered while going to . . . Codifying what is commonly known as the “going and coming” rule, section 440.092(2) provides: An injury . . . Because Claimant was simply going to work — travel deemed personal by section 440.092(2) — there was . . . The JCC correctly ruled, pursuant to section 440.092(2), that Claimant’s injuries are not compensable . . .
. . . . § 440.092(2) (“[a]n injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out . . .
. . . We agree that the “going and coming” provision of section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2009), operated . . .
. . . injuries sustained as a result of an emergency designed to save property are compensable under section 440.092 . . . coachman rule, asking this Court to construe his actions as an emergency undertaking covered under section 440.092 . . . holding was that the ownership of the property was not the determinative factor in deciding when section 440.092 . . . the action, then the statute deems the injury would “arise from work performed” because of section 440.092 . . .
. . . entitled to these benefits because she did not qualify as a “traveling employee” as provided in section 440.092 . . . employment at the time of the accident, and therefore was not a traveling employee pursuant to section 440.092 . . . Traveling Employees Section .440.092(4), Florida Statutes, concerns traveling employees and, in relevant . . .
. . . The JCC found that Claimant’s injury fell within the “going or coming” rule set forth in section 440.092 . . .
. . . . § 440.092(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Whitehead v. . . .
. . . of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied benefits to claimant based on the going and coming rule, section 440.092 . . . for the following reasons: (1) the traveling employee exception to the going and coming rule, section 440.092 . . . own vehicle to or from work, therefore recovery of workers’ compensation benefits is barred by F.S. 440.092 . . . ANALYSIS Claimant’s first argument is that the traveling employee exception, section 440.092(4), should . . . Section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: An injury suffered while going to or coming from . . .
. . . Section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (2003), provides that an employee who is injured while deviating . . . However, there is nothing in Gonzalez or in the language of section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes, to . . . Nothing in section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (2003), precludes Claimant from receiving benefits simply . . .
. . . These are not circumstances that justify the JCC’s denial of benefits to claimant under section 440.092 . . . It seems to me section 440.092(1) does not apply to an employee who is on duty and receiving wages in . . . In other words, the activity should not be, and cannot be, “recreation” under section 440.092(1). . . . I believe such a course comports with existing precedent and section 440.092(1). . . . To hold otherwise creates a “save me from myself’ defense to a claim under section 440.092(1). . . . Section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes (2003), provides that “[rjecreational or social activities are not . . .
. . . appeal a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding compensable, pursuant to section 440.092 . . . C’s second issue relates to the JCC’s finding Appellee’s second accident compen-sable under section 440.092 . . . Section 440.092(5) was enacted in 1990 and re-enacted in 1991. . . . Section 440.092(5) does not define “remedial treatment.” . . . present record supports the JCC’s conclusion that Appellee’s injuries are compensable under section 440.092 . . .
. . . The principle is commonly known as the “going and coming rule” and is codified in section 440.092(2), . . . However, section 440.092(3) Florida Statutes (1999), provides: An employee who is injured while deviating . . .
. . . .” § 440.092(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . Codifying the going and coming rule, section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides: “An injury . . .
. . . Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495, 496 (1940); see also § 440.092(3), Fla. . . . by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. § 440.092 . . . Rodriguez “engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer,” § 440.092(2), Fla. . . .
. . . compensability was barred by horseplay and that claimant deviated from his employment under section 440.092 . . .
. . . The “going and coming” rule, as codified in section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), provides . . . Section 440.092(2) provides: An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising . . . by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. § 440.092 . . .
. . . with the well-reasoned opinion of the majority on the First District and the application of section 440.092 . . . Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); § 440.092(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . This rule governing compensability of workers’ compensation claims is codified in section 440.092(2), . . . Because the term “dual purpose doctrine” does not appear in section 440.092, the respondents question . . . See § 440.092(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . See § 440.092(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). . Swartz contends that Advanced Diagnostics v. . . .
. . . Frist, the case involves section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1997), the codification of the going and . . . Also involved is the codification of the traveling employee’s rule, found in section 440.092(4), Florida . . . Section 440.092(4) applies to this case because claimant was regularly required to travel to audit sites . . .
. . . We conclude that the judge misapplied the going and coming rule as codified in section 440.092(2), Florida . . . In denying the claim the judge relied on section 440.092(2), which generally indicates . that an injury . . .
. . . The going-and-coming rule, previously recognized in case law, has been codified in section 440.092(2) . . . Another provision of the statute pertinent to this case is found in section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes . . .
. . . The employer/carrier also defended under the coming and going rule set forth in section 440.092, Florida . . .
. . . while they are going to and coming from work, Ch. 93-415, Laws of Fla., § 6, at 78 (amending section 440.092 . . . Although section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995), states broadly that an “injury suffered while going . . . benefits on the ground that her claim was barred by the operation of the going and coming rule, section 440.092 . . . The going and coming rule has been codified in section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995), as follows . . .
. . . as a matter of law, have had “exclusive personal use,” as contemplated by Florida Statutes section 440.092 . . . Under section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1990), it is a question of fact whether the employee has . . . Section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1990), provides as follows: GOING OR COMING. — An injury suffered . . .
. . . See § 440.092(1), Fla. Stat. (1991); Highlands County School Board v. . . .
. . . .” § 440.092(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . such travel is “travel necessarily incident to performance of the employee’s job responsibility.” § 440.092 . . . The going and coming rule, codified in section 440.092(2) Florida Statutes (1995), does not apply in . . . is engaged in “travel necessarily incident to performance of the employee’s job responsibility.” § 440.092 . . .
. . . Codified at section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995). . . .
. . . They claimed, therefore, that based on section 440.092 Kitschke’s injuries were not suffered during the . . . Section 440.092(2), styled "Going or Coming,” provides that "[a]n injury suffered while going to or coming . . .
. . . The JCC determined that the claimant’s accident was compensable under section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes . . . not abrogate the personal comfort doctrine or the bunkhouse rule in the 1994 amendments to section 440.092 . . . determination that the claimant was actively engaged in the duties of her employment under section 440.092 . . . Chapter 93-415, Laws of Florida, effective January 1,1994, provides: 440.092 Special requirements for . . . We hold that, under the express language of the 1994 amendments to section 440.092(4), the legislature . . .
. . . order denying com-pensability based upon application of the “going or coming” rule contained in section 440.092 . . . the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), in denying compensability, did not properly construe section 440.092 . . . Appellee, in contrast, urges that section 440.092(4) be read to be consistent with section 440.092(2) . . . made consistent with those set forth in Section 440.092(2). . . . Section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.) (Emphasis supplied). . . .
. . . .” § 440.092(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .
. . . We conclude that the judge improperly applied section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1991), and reverse . . . after work, he had not demonstrated an exception to the “going and coming” rule set forth in section 440.092 . . .
. . . The E/SA defended on the basis of section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (1991), asserting that the accident . . . applying the personal comfort doctrine, and ruled that the doctrine had not been abrogated by section 440.092 . . . /SA contend, however, that the personal comfort doctrine has been effectively eliminated by section 440.092 . . . place condoned by the employer, was not a deviation from his work within the contemplation of section 440.092 . . .
. . . The E/C, by a footnote in their brief, argue the applicability of section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes . . .
. . . We conclude that the judge properly applied section 440.092, Florida Statutes (1991), and the special . . . See also § 440.092(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). . . . support the factual findings upon which compensability was established, in accordance with section 440.092 . . .
. . . However, given the facts of this ease, he erred when he based his decision upon only section 440.092( . . . 4), without reference to section 440.092(3), which reads: (3) DEVIATION PROM EMPLOYMENT. — An employee . . . As we read section 440.092, it was the legislature’s intent that, in factual circumstances such as those . . . and other activities reasonably required by the travel status” be determined by reference to section 440.092 . . . , with directions that the judge of compensation claims make additional findings, regarding section 440.092 . . .
. . . The E/C contends the shoulder injury is not compen-sable under section 440.092(5), Florida Statutes ( . . .
. . . . § 440.092(2), Fla.Stat. (1991) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . coming and going rule, the exception no longer applies because of a newly enacted statute, section 440.092 . . . This case presents a question of first impression regarding the extent to which section 440.092(2) has . . .
. . . Likewise, appellant’s contention that section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), abolished the . . . Section 440.092, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990) provides in pertinent part: 440.092 Special requirements . . .
. . . game was a result of an incident of her employment and, therefore, compensable pursuant to section 440.092 . . . cover the injury sustained in the faculty basketball game was denied by the E/C pursuant to section 440.092 . . . Section 440.092(1) was created in 1990 and was in effect on December 21, 1990, the date of the claimant . . .
. . . furthered by the enactment of chapter 90-201, section 14, Laws of Florida (to be codified at section 440.092 . . .