Humphreys v. Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. / Packard Claims
William H. Rogner
JCC Dietz (Sebastian/Melbourne) – (2-25-19) – Granted 25% reduction in indemnity benefits – The Claimant was injured while working for a roofing company, which had a “100% Tie Down” policy (all employees had to be connected to a stable structure by a cable while working on a roof.) This policy was discussed regularly with all employees, including the Claimant. On the date of the injury, the Claimant initially had his cable connected, in compliance with company safety policy. However, the Claimant noticed that part of the roof he was working on began to flap more as the wind grew more intense. He testified that he was fearful that the newly loosened portion of the roof would disconnect and harm his co-workers. Before he could reach the damaged section of the roof, his cable teather ran out. The Claimant testified that it would have taken another 30 minutes to create a proper anchor for his cable, so he decided to unhook himself so he could attempt to fix the loose portion of the roof. Subsequently, he fell 20 feet, though he testified he could not recall the exact circumstances of the fall. The Claimant sustained injuries to the head, elbow and posterior. The primary issue was the whether or not the 25% reduction, provided in 440.09(5), should apply in this case. The Claimant argued that this was an emergency situation, and that he had no “intention” of breaking the statute. The JCC accepted the E/C’s argument that the appropriate test was “not whether one is intending to specifically violate the statute, but whether one consciously intends to do the act which is violative of the statute.” Gregory v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc. The JCC held that the Claimant’s specific intent to violate the statute was not at issue, and that he action of detaching himself from the tie-down cable was a knowing refusal to follow safety policy that caused his injuries.
View JCC Merits Order