Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Repetitive Trauma Under Florida Workers’ Compensation Law

Most work-related injuries arise from acute, single-incident accidents — a fall, a lifting injury, or a sudden mechanical failure. With few exceptions (such as injuries caused by horseplay), these “one-time” accidents are compensable under Florida’s workers’ compensation system.

But what about injuries that develop gradually over time — through years of physical stress or repetitive motion? Are these covered as well?

The Festa Standard

The answer is yes, provided the injured worker can establish three elements set forth in Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So. 2d 122, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980):

1. Prolonged exposure,
2. A cumulative effect resulting in injury or the aggravation of a preexisting condition, and
3. A hazard greater than that to which the general public is exposed.

Subsequent cases have refined these requirements. In Rodriguez v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the First District appeared to relax the “greater hazard” requirement. Meanwhile, the Florida Supreme Court in University of Florida v. Massie, 602 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1992), held that for a preexisting condition to be compensable, it must be aggravated by a non-routine, job-related physical condition or by repeated physical trauma — signaling a limit on recovery for aggravations based solely on mental or emotional stress.

The Burden of Proof: Clear and Convincing Evidence

Repetitive trauma claims are subject to a higher evidentiary burden under section 440.02(1), Florida Statutes. The claimant must establish compensability by clear and convincing evidence, rather than the usual preponderance standard.

“Clear and convincing evidence” means evidence of such weight and character as to produce in the judge’s mind a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, as to the truth of the allegations.

A Case Example: The Mattress Factory Worker

The first workers’ compensation case I ever took to a final hearing illustrates the Festa standard well.

My client was a woman in her 60s who spent more than 15 years constructing box-spring mattress frames in a warehouse. Her job required her to assemble and lift each frame—ranging from single to king size—onto a dolly beside her workstation. Over time, she developed severe cervical pain that forced her to retire. The employer and carrier denied her claim, arguing there was no single accident to explain her cervical disc herniations.

We filed a Festa repetitive trauma claim.

• Element (1): Prolonged exposure was easily shown by her 15-year work history.
• Element (2): Cumulative injury was established through lay and medical testimony. She denied any prior neck injuries, and her treating orthopedist opined that her job duties were the probable cause of her herniations.
• Element (3): Greater hazard was proven through both lay and expert evidence. She testified that, having once picked cotton as a young woman in the rural South, that work was difficult—but far less strenuous than her duties in the mattress factory. Her physician testified that her work exposed her to significantly greater physical demands than those faced by the general public. (We also urged the judge to take judicial notice of that fact.)

The judge ruled in our favor—finding the injury compensable and awarding Permanent Total Disability benefits under section 440.15(1), Florida Statutes.

Lessons from Experience

Since that case, we have successfully applied the Festa standard many times. While repetitive trauma claims present greater evidentiary challenges than single-incident accidents, they remain an essential avenue for justice when workplace injuries develop gradually over years of service.

Other Key Cases on Repetitive Trauma

• Houle v. Asphalt Sealing & Stripping Co., Inc., 397 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1981) – Heavy lifting over time found consistent with claimed back injury.
• Sewell v. J.C. Penney, 569 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) – The court took judicial notice that the claimant’s job exposed her to greater hazards than the public.
• Johnson v. Knight, 594 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) – Expert testimony is not always required to establish the “greater hazard” element.
• Daugherty v. Red Lobster, 550 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) – Waitress awarded benefits for back injury caused by repetitive tray-carrying.
• Orlando Precast Products v. Ciofalo, 501 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) – Truck driver’s prolonged sitting, twisting, and heavy lifting met the greater hazard requirement.
• Winn-Dixie Stores v. Morgan, 533 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) – Compensable wrist injury established where repetitive manual tasks led to trauma.

Final Thoughts

Repetitive trauma claims are not “second-class” cases under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. They demand more rigorous proof, but when properly developed, they can yield full and fair recovery for workers whose bodies have been worn down by years of honest labor.

As Festa and its progeny remind us, the absence of a single, dramatic accident does not make an injury any less real—or any less compensable.

Interestingly, in repetitive trauma cases, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the injury becomes disabling—that is, when it results in lost wages or modified duty. We have successfully applied this principle to cases involving longstanding medical conditions that only recently, within the past two years, became disabling.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.