Essential hypertension without evidence of disability did not meet the presumption of compensability under the Heart/Lung Bill, Fla. Stat. 112.18(1).

The claimant, a police officer, was hired on July 28, 1997, and had a pre-employment physical that was negative for hypertension. On October 7, 2021, the claimant reported to work but was not feeling well. He was advised to go to a fire station to get checked out, where he found that his blood pressure was elevated. He then went to the hospital for treatment and work-up. He was discharged the same day and told to follow up with a cardiologist. He missed three additional days of work. 

The employer/carrier authorized care under the 120-day provision. That provider opined that the claimant’s essential hypertension did not cause him any disability. However, the claimant was disabled while undergoing necessary testing to rule out acute coronary syndrome. The employer/carrier then denied the essential hypertension for the following reasons: (1) the condition complained of had not been substantiated to be covered as an industrial injury, occupational disease, or exposure under Section 440.151 for a presumption claim under Section 112.18, nor the collective bargaining agreement; (2) per Dr. Perloff, the authorized provider, the condition complained of was personal, not a covered presumption condition, nor causally related to the claimant’s workplace stressors; and (3) no disability had occurred on either a partial or total basis, nor were physical limitations assigned that precluded normal work functions as a result of a covered presumption diagnosis. 
The claimant’s IME physician opined that essential hypertension was the cause of the claimant’s disability and assigned a 5% permanent impairment rating (PIR). An Expert Medical Advisor (EMA) physician testified that the essential hypertension did not result in any disability. 

The judge of compensation claims was not persuaded by any of the arguments offered by the claimant and afforded the EMA’s opinions the presumption of correctness. The judge held the evidence was insufficient to establish the claimant suffered disability as a result of his diagnosed essential hypertension and that the presumption of compensability under the Heart/Lung Bill did not apply. The judge also ruled that the remaining medical evidence did not establish a causal relationship of hypertension to the claimant’s work activity. Compensability was denied. The claimant appealed, and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision per curiam. 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 9, September 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}