Could Fla. Prison Guard Capture Lost Wages for Post-Retirement AFib Diagnosis?

What Do You Think?

Florida's heart-lung statute creates a rebuttable presumption that heart disease is an accident that arose from employment for certain first responders, including law enforcement officers. A recent case involving a prison guard addresses whether an employee can recover lost wages if he is diagnosed after he retires.

The corrections officer resigned in March 2021 due to health concerns. He cited the stress of the job and long hours due to alleged understaffing at the prison. At the time he resigned, he was making $763 per week. 

On July 16, he experienced heart palpitations and was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. He spent five days at the hospital. 

The Department of Corrections accepted the condition as compensable under Florida’s “heart-lung statute.” It green-lighted medical care for the officer but denied him benefits for lost wages. It argued that his average weekly wage was zero because he was not an employee when he was diagnosed and had no earnings in the prior 13 weeks. 

Was the claimant’s AWW zero dollars?

A. No. The DOC accepted the compensability of the claim, thereby admitting that the officer was an employee when he became disabled.

B. Yes. At the time he went to the hospital and was diagnosed, he had already been retired for four months.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Gugliemo v. State of Florida, No. 1D2022-3942 (Fla. Ct. App. 07/30/25), which held that the officer’s AWW should be based on what he earned while working, not what he was earning at the time be became disabled. 

Looking for information on AWW in your state? Look to Simply Research

Under the “heart-lung statute” and §440.151, the court explained, the date of accident is the date of disablement, not necessarily the last day of active employment. AWW can be based on wages during the period of last injurious exposure, even if the claimant is no longer actively employed at the time the injury manifests.

The court also pointed out that the DOC’s decision to accept compensability under the "heart-lung statute" meant that it conceded each element of claim, including that the officer was a covered employee.

“DOC cannot accept compensability of a condition caused by workplace exposure and simultaneously deny indemnity benefits by claiming zero wages,” the court said. 

The court held that the officer was entitled to indemnity benefits for the five days he was in the hospital and remanded the case to the lower court to recalculate his AWW.

Share This Article: