Case Name: ALTMAN CONTRACTORS and North River Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Dynelle GIBSON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2011-04-29
Citations: 63 So. 3d 802
Docket Number: No. 1D10-3008
Parties: ALTMAN CONTRACTORS and North River Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Dynelle GIBSON, Appellee.
Judges: HAWKES and MARSTILLER, JJ„ concurs; WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 63
Pages: 802–805

Head Matter:
ALTMAN CONTRACTORS and North River Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Dynelle GIBSON, Appellee.
No. 1D10-3008.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 29, 2011.
Rehearing Denied June 21, 2011.
William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox & Waranch & Westcott, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellants.
Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tampa, and Laurie Thrower Miles of Smith, Feddeler, Smith & Miles, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims that finds Claimant's mold exposure injury compensable. We agree with the E/C's argument that reversal is warranted because no record evidence establishes the levels of mold to which Claimant was exposed in the workplace, a statutory condition imposed by section 440.02(1), Florida Statutes (2005). See Matrix Employee Leasing v. Pierce, 985 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). We also agree that the JCC erred in substituting the causation standard expressed in Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), for the more exacting statutory causation standard for mold exposure claims enacted by the Legislature. See Mangold v. Rainforest Golf Sports Ctr., 675 So.2d 689, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ("When the Legislature makes a substantial and material change in the language of a statute, it is presumed to have intended some specific objective or alteration of the law, unless a contrary indication is clear."). Because we agree with these arguments, we REVERSE the order on appeal, and need not reach the remaining issues raised by the E/C.
HAWKES and MARSTILLER, JJ" concurs; WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.