Seminole County, Florida and Johns Eastern Company, Inc. v. Chad Braden, First District Court of Appeals - DCA#: 21-3530, Decision date: Dec. 13, 2023

The claimant, a firefighter, was hired in 1993 after passing a pre-employment physical. Later in the early 2000s, a cardiac condition was accepted as compensable. On December 27, 2020, the claimant tested positive for COVID-19, and on January 24, 2021, he suffered a heart attack. Three months before the heart attack, the claimant was seen for a routine visit with the authorized cardiologist and was cleared and having no issues. After the heart attack, his condition deteriorated and ultimately required a heart transplant in March of 2021.

The claimant filed a Petition for Benefits, asserting that his heart attack stemmed from “heart disease,” meaning that the statutory presumption under section 112.18 applied. The employer/carrier accepted under the 120-day provision, but they later denied compensability, asserting his condition was the result of COVID-19, not the initially accepted heart disease.

The question then became whether the employer/carrier had overcome the presumption. Dr. Nocero was authorized by the employer/carrier to provide treatment after the claimant’s heart attack, and his testimony was accepted. Dr. Nocero testified that the COVID-19 infection was the cause of the claimant’s heart attack, and the judge of workers’ compensation claims held that COVID-19 caused the claimant’s heart disease, heart attack and heart transplant. The judge also found that the claimant contracted the virus at work, based on the timeline of his co-worker with COVID-19, while his close contacts never developed symptoms or tested positive.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the judge’s ruling, finding it was supported by competent and substantial evidence.