Background
William McGovern worked as a firefighter for the City of Maitland beginning in 1988 and passed a preemployment physical showing no heart disease. In June 2012, testing revealed a substantial blockage in his left anterior descending artery, and he underwent a stenting procedure. He retired from Maitland shortly afterward without reporting the condition as a workers’ compensation injury.
McGovern then became a firefighter for the Sanford Airport Authority. His preemployment physical there showed heart disease. After about 12 years with Sanford, he suffered further heart complications in 2024, underwent additional stenting and double-bypass surgery, and was placed on a transplant list. He sought benefits from Maitland and its servicing agent, which sought to shift responsibility to Sanford under the last-injurious-exposure rule.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the compensation order finding McGovern’s heart disease compensable as to Maitland and awarding medical care and impairment benefits. It also affirmed the denial of temporary disability benefits.
The court held that Maitland did not establish that McGovern was last “injuriously exposed” while working for Sanford. Because his Sanford preemployment physical showed heart disease, the firefighter heart-disease presumption did not apply to that employment. Maitland also presented no evidence connecting McGovern’s heart condition to his Sanford employment, and Sanford did not concede compensability. The judge of compensation claims therefore properly denied Maitland’s contribution claim against Sanford.
Key Takeaways
- The last-injurious-exposure rule requires proof that the later employment was injurious as to the occupational disease at issue.
- A firefighter whose preemployment physical shows heart disease cannot invoke the statutory heart-disease presumption against that employer.
- Absent evidence of an employment-related connection or a concession of compensability, a prior employer cannot shift liability to a later employer.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that later firefighting employment alone does not transfer responsibility for a heart-disease claim under the last-injurious-exposure rule. Employers seeking to shift liability must establish an injurious exposure at the subsequent employment, rather than rely solely on the chronology of employment.