TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida appellate court has reinstated a teacher’s claim for additional workers’ compensation benefits after concluding that an administrative law judge rejected her claim based on a misinterpretation of an expert medical report. Fitzgerald v. Osceola County School Board, No. 1D07-0007 (Fla. Ct. App., 1st Dist.).

The 1st District Court of Appeal denied Nicole Fitzgerald’s demand for judgment as a matter of law on Feb. 19 and remanded to the Judge of Compensation Claims for a new determination on whether Fitzgerald’s asthma can be attributed to workplace exposure to mold.

Fitzgerald is seeking additional workers’ compensation benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses from the Osceola County School Board and the Florida School Board Insurance Trust, contending that her illness was caused by mold in her elementary school classroom.

She testified at her compensation hearing that she had no history of asthma and that her respiratory illness, for which she sought treatment over two years, was caused by the mold exposure.

Mold was found in her classroom, according to Fitzgerald.

The local school board granted benefits for “temporary aggravation of the claimant’s pre-existing condition” up to Aug. 11, 2005, but denied further coverage, holding that workplace exposure was not the primary cause of her illness.

Dr. Jayanthi Ravi initially diagnosed Fitzgerald with severe allergies, rhinitis and a mold allergy, and testified that the teacher’s illness could be attributed to mold exposure, the Court of Appeals said.

Dr. Jock Sneddon testified for the school board that Dr. Ravi’s test results didn’t indicate asthma and that evidence for mold-related illness was inconclusive.

The Court of Appeals said that the Judge of Compensation Claims appointed an expert medical advisor, Dr. Daniel Haim, to examine Fitzgerald and offer his own opinion to assist the court.

Dr. Haim testified that the diagnosis of asthmas was “somewhat questionable,” but that most of Fitzgerald’s symptoms were “allergy-related,” the court noted.

He also testified that he could not be sure that mold exposure was responsible for more than 50 percent of her symptoms and basis for treatment, the court said.

The compensation judge interpreted Dr. Haim’s testimony as concluding that the major contributing cause was not workplace mold exposure, and that interpretation was error, the Court of Appeals said.

“If the JCC misinterprets and EMA’s testimony to stand for a position that the EMA did not actually adopt, reversal and remand is appropriate,” the court explained.

Dr. Haim’s opinion “could have assisted the JCC in assessing both disputed aspects of that claim: first, whether claimant, in fact, suffers from asthma or another compensable respiratory condition, and second, if so, whether the industrial exposure caused that condition for purposes of the workers’ compensation law,” the court said. “We conclude that the EMA offered opinions relevant to this two-pronged inquiry, but that ultimately he was inconclusive about both issues.”

That does not mean, however, that Fitzgerald is entitled to the benefits she seeks, the court said.

“[A]lthough appellant correctly argues that the JCC’s misinterpretation of Dr. Haim’s testimony constitutes a flaw in the final order, the bootstrapped argument that such flaw is fatal and results automatically in a victory for the claimant is not correct,” the court said, citing case law.

Kevin Maxwell of Vaughan & Maxwell in Orlando, Fla., and Bill McCabe of Longwood, Fla., represent Fitzgerald.

Pamela J. Cox and Jodi K. Mustoe of Cox & Rouse in Maitland represent the Osceola County School Board and the Florida School Board Insurance Trust.

Document Is Available
Call (800) 496-4319 or
Search www.harrismartin.com
Opinion Ref# MOL-0803-04