Pinellas County Transit Authority and Commercial Risk Management, Inc. v. Annita C. Williams Jackson

FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-1522
_____________________________
P INELLAS C OUNTY TRANSIT
A UTHORITY and C OMMERCIAL
R ISK M ANAGEMENT , I NC .,
Appellants,
v.
A NNITA C. W ILLIAMS JACKSON ,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims.
John P. Moneyham, Judge.
Date of Accident: May 05, 2022.
November 12, 2025
O STERHAUS, C.J.
When 	claimant 	Annita 	C. 	Williams 	Jackson 	turned 	the
steering wheel of a bus at work in 2022, she reinjured her shoulder
and 	required 	medical 	treatment. 	The 	Employer/Carrier 	(E/C),
Pinellas 	County 	Transit 	Authority 	and 	Commercial 	Risk
Management, Inc., denied Claimant’s claim for benefits because
doctors identified Claimant’s prior on-the-job shoulder injury in
2021 as the major contributing cause of her need for benefits after
the 	2022 	accident, 	and 	because 	Claimant 	had 	made
misrepresentations related to her 2021 claim that barred her from
entitlement to benefits for that injury under § 440.105, Florida

2
Statutes. 	The 	JCC 	disagreed 	with 	the 	E/C’s 	arguments 	and
awarded benefits. Seeing no error with this award, we affirm.
This court reviews a JCC’s interpretations of law de novo and
upholds findings of fact if supported by competent substantial
evidence. See Andrews v. McKim & Creed, 355 So. 3d 957, 961 (Fla.
1st DCA 2023) (describing the standard of review in workers’
compensation 	cases). 	Workers’ 	compensation 	benefits 	are
available in Florida when an injury arises out of and in the course
and scope of one’s work. “[A]rises out of” is defined in terms of a
“major contributing cause” (MCC) analysis. § 440.09(1), Fla. Stat.
(2021). That is, an occupational accident must be “more than 50
percent responsible for the injury.” Id. (“The employer must pay
compensation or furnish benefits . . . if the employee suffers an
accidental 	compensable 	injury 	or 	death 	arising 	out 	of 	work
performed in the course and the scope of employment. . . . ‘[M]ajor
contributing cause’ means the cause which is more than 50 percent
responsible for the injury.”); see also § 440.02(36), Fla. Stat. (2021)
(“An accidental injury or death arises out of employment if work
performed in the course and scope of employment is the major
contributing cause of the injury or death”).
This dispute stems from the finding that the Claimant’s first
rotator cuff injury in 2021 mostly caused Claimant’s need for the
benefits she now requests, a need she attributes to her injury in
2022. The E/C reiterates on appeal that because the Claimant lost
her right to receive benefits for the 2021 workplace injury by
making misrepresentations forbidden by § 440.105, she was also
foreclosed from receiving benefits she now claims under the 2022
injury. 	Under 	§ 440.105, 	Florida Statutes, claimants may not
“knowingly make, or cause to be made, any false, fraudulent, or
misleading oral or written statement for the purpose of obtaining
or denying any benefit or payment under this chapter.” Section
440.09(4)(a) 	bars 	benefits 	for 	an 	employee 	found 	to 	have
“knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in
s. 440.105 ... for the purpose of securing workers’ compensation
benefits.”
The problem with the E/C’s argument is twofold. First, both of
Claimant’s rotator cuff accidents and injuries stemmed from her
work on the job. Claimant sought benefits after each of the injuries

3
occurred during the course and scope of her employment, which
rendered MCC analysis inapplicable. 	See Pearson v. Paradise
Ford, 951 So. 2d 12, 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (applying MCC
analysis only when a claimant’s need for treatment or benefits was
caused by the impact of an employment accident combined with a
preexisting 	injury 	or 	condition 	that 	was 	unrelated 	to 	an
employment accident); Pizza Hut v. Proctor, 955 So.2d 637, 638
(Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that the E/C could not rely upon
section 	440.09(1)(b) 	because 	the 	case 	involved 	two 	industrial
accidents and no preexisting injury attributable to a nonindustrial
cause). Conversely, there is no injury unrelated to Claimant’s work
involved with this case. Nor did Claimant fail to seek benefits after
her 2021 accident as might have rendered that accident non-
compensable and required a MCC analysis to be completed. See
Newick v. Webster Training Ctr., 78 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
(upholding the apportionment of benefits where benefits weren’t
sought for a prior workplace injury so that it was never deemed
compensable).
Second, 	the 	E/C’s 	misrepresentation-defense 	argument
conflates the concepts of “compensability” and “entitlement to
benefits,” which are distinct concepts. See § 440.20(1), Fla. Stat.
(providing for the payment of compensation unless a carrier denies
“compensability or entitlement to benefits” (emphasis added)); N.
River Ins. Co. v. Wuelling, 683 So. 2d 1090, 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA
1996) (noting various cases recognizing that compensability and
entitlement to benefits “are separate concepts”). Compensability
involves the workplace-related existence and cause of an injury
and not benefits-entitlement issues. Babahmetovic v. Scan Design
Fla. Inc., 176 So. 3d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Here, it is
true that the E/C’s successful misrepresentation defense on the
2021 injury claim foreclosed Claimant’s entitlement to benefits for
that accident. But that forfeiture of benefits did not render either
the 	2021 	or 	2022 	accident 	non-compensable 	because, 	again,
compensability 	analysis 	doesn’t 	directly 	concern 	benefit-
entitlement 	but 	whether 	a 	work-caused 	accident 	and 	injury
occurred. Nor did the E/C’s misrepresentation defense foreclose
Claimant from qualifying for benefits stemming from the second,
separate workplace accident in 2022. See Paulson v. Dixie Cnty.
Emergency Med. Servs., 936 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
(holding that § 440.09(1)’s plain language applies the prohibition

4
on benefits when a claimant violates § 440.105 only “to a specific
accident” in which fraud was committed and not to a subsequent
workplace accident). The JCC found there to be a genuine second
accident here that was not merely an attempt to resurrect benefits
for a previously benefit-barred claim. Thus, the E/C’s successful
§ 440.105 defense didn’t affect the compensability status of either
the 2021 or 2022 accidents, nor did it prevent Claimant from
qualifying 	to 	receive 	benefits 	corresponding 	to 	the 	distinct
workplace accident and injury in 2022.
A FFIRMED.
R OBERTS and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Alyssa Pickles and Robert B. Bennett of Bennett, Jacobs & Adams,
P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.
Anna Katherine Stone of Injury Florida Law Firm, P.A., Tampa,
for Appellee.