JCC Denies Higher Cardiac Impairment Rating Despite Firefighter’s 22% IME Opinion

In Christopher Hutchinson v. City of Delray Beach/Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions/PGCS, OJCC Case No. 24-019963GJJ, the claimant sought permanent impairment benefits based on a 22% whole-body cardiac rating after a compensable March 9, 2024 heart attack accepted under section 112.18. The employer and servicing agent had already paid impairment benefits based on authorized cardiologist Dr. David Perloff’s 18% rating and disputed any increase, along with penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees.

Judge Gregory J. Johnsen accepted Dr. Perloff’s 18% Class 2 rating over claimant IME Dr. Patrick Mathias’s 22% paper-review opinion. The order emphasizes that Florida’s impairment schedule focuses on current functional loss after maximum medical improvement, not the seriousness of the original cardiac event or long-term prognosis. The judge relied heavily on the claimant’s normal echocardiograms, excellent treadmill stress-test performance, full-duty return to firefighting work, and Dr. Perloff’s testimony that the claimant’s exercise capacity remained well above normal.

Because the judge found the claimant’s compensable coronary artery disease produced an 18% whole-body impairment rather than 22%, the claim for additional impairment benefits failed, and the related claims for penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs were denied. The practical takeaway is that a claimant’s expert can lose an impairment-rating dispute when the opinion leans on future cardiac risk and the severity of the past heart attack more than the claimant’s actual post-MMI functional capacity under the Florida impairment guides.

Source: Compensation Order