Chad Braden began working as a firefighter in Seminole County, Florida in 1993. In the early 2000s, he suffered from cardiac problems and began regular treatment with a cardiologist. In the fall of 2020, Braden had a regular appointment with his cardiologist, who cleared him to work without restrictions. On December 27, 2020, Braden tested positive for COVID-19 and a month later Braden suffered a heart attack, which led to cascading health problems, several surgeries, and a heart transplant.
The County challenged Braden’s petition for workers’ compensation. At the hearing, the County acknowledged that a statutory presumption of work causation applied to the heart attack. The only issue before the workers’ compensation judge was whether the County successfully rebutted the presumption, arguing that the intervening COVID-19 infection, and not Braden’s history of heart disease, was the cause of his disability and that Braden contracted the virus outside of work. Braden’s girlfriend, daughter, and son each testified that they were with Braden for Christmas, and none of them tested positive for COVID-19 in the following days. Furthermore, there was evidence in the record that some of Braden’s coworkers contracted COVID-19 in the days before and after December 27. Several medical experts testified during the hearing on behalf of both parties; and the County’s experts conceded the possibility that Braden contracted COVID-19 at work.
The workers’ compensation judge agreed with the County that COVID-19 – and not Braden’s historical cardiac issue – was the immediate cause of Braden’s heart attack. However, the judge found that the County did not rebut the presumption that he contracted the virus at work, and therefore found Braden’s claim compensable. The County appealed.
Upon review, the appellate court determined that there was no reversible error and affirmed. Since the County agreed that the presumption applied, all that mattered upon review was whether the workers’ compensation judge had substantial, competent evidence upon which to base its conclusions. Given the testimony of the witnesses there was substantial evidence to conclude that the County did not rebut the presumption that Braden contracted COVID-19 at work. Therefore, his claim was compensable.
Seminole County, Florida v. Braden, No. 1D2021-3530, 2023 WL 8609713 (Ct. App. Fla.).