ANGELA ALVERO v. WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES STRATEGIC COMP SERVICES (2022)

Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) ruling her injury following a workplace fall to be noncompensable. The JCC found that Claimant's fall was not caused by any preexisting or idiopathic condition of Claimant. The JCC also stated that Claimant “fell while exiting the breakroom on the date of accident and does not know why she fell.” The JCC acknowledged that this Court has held similar unexplained workplace falls to be compensable. See Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, 93 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Despite this, the JCC believed that our decision in Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, 271 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (en banc), had overruled Caputo and various other cases on workplace falls.

In denying compensation to Claimant, the JCC did not have the benefit of this Court's recent opinion in Soya v. Health First, Inc., 337 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). There, we acknowledged the continued viability of Caputo and other workplace fall cases. Soya, 337 So. 3d at 389–90. We clarified that the “increased hazard analysis under Valcourt-Williams applies only where there is a contributing cause outside of employment,” in that case a dog in Valcourt-Williams's home. Soya, 337 So. 3d at 389. We have also recently noted that in absence of any preexisting or idiopathic condition, “the mundane exertion of walking to get around at work is enough to establish a work cause because the ‘any exertion’ test does not look at the quality or quantity of the activity. ‘Any exertion’ means any effort in furtherance of work will do.” Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 335 So. 3d 148, 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).

Accordingly, we reverse, and remand for consideration under Soya.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM.

ROBERTS, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.