Case Name: CITY OF TAMPA, Appellant, v. David L. TINGLER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-02-06
Citations: 397 So. 2d 315
Docket Number: No. VV-31
Parties: CITY OF TAMPA, Appellant, v. David L. TINGLER, Appellee.
Judges: ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 397
Pages: 315–317

Head Matter:
CITY OF TAMPA, Appellant, v. David L. TINGLER, Appellee.
No. VV-31.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 6, 1981.
Rehearing Denied April 21, 1981.
James A. Sheehan, Tampa, for appellant.
Joseph L. Thury, Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The self-insured employer appeals a workers' compensation order and contends, among other issues, that the deputy should have denied the claim for untimely notice of injury. We find no reversible error and affirm the order appealed.
Claimant, a city police officer, was required to intercede in a domestic dispute; a physical struggle ensued and claimant's arm was severely twisted. Although claimant soon recovered from this physical trauma, he thereafter developed a disabling psycho-physiological reaction.
Section 440.185(1), Florida Statutes, requires that an employer be given notice, within 30 days, that an injury has resulted from an industrial accident. See Crossroads Villa v. Hutchins, IRC Order 2-3237 (Sept. 27, 1977), cert. dismissed 353 So.2d 676 (Fla.1977). But the time for notice does not begin to run until the claimant is aware of such facts as would indicate that the injury is causally related to the industrial accident. Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So.2d 483 (Fla.1961). In the present case the claimant did not give formal notice of the relation between his psychophysiological reaction and the employment altercation until ten months after the employment incident. However, the record does not conclusively establish that claimant was aware of such causal relation before this time. We therefore conclude that the present case falls within the Escar-ra rule and that notice of injury was timely given. We also note that, immediately after the employment altercation, claimant filed a police report which detailed the occurrences of the employment altercation and noted the battery which occurred during the physical struggle.
The order appealed is affirmed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., J., concurs.
MILLS, C.- J., dissents.