A Florida court just drew a clear line for insurers: when it comes to workers’ comp for occupational diseases, it’s the last job exposure - not the date of diagnosis - that counts.
On July 30, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal in Florida issued a decision that’s set to impact how insurance professionals handle workers’ compensation claims for public employees under the state’s “heart-lung statute.” The case centers on Michael Guglielmo, a former corrections officer who developed atrial fibrillation months after leaving his job at Zephyrhills Correctional Institution, Department of Corrections (DOC).
Guglielmo’s employment history is straightforward. He spent 23 years as a police officer before joining the DOC. In March 2021, he resigned from his corrections job, citing health concerns and exhaustion from long hours. At the time he left, his weekly wage was $673.20. Four months later, on July 16, 2021, Guglielmo experienced heart palpitations and was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation after a trip to the emergency room. He reported the condition to the DOC and filed a workers’ compensation claim under Florida’s “heart-lung statute,” which presumes certain heart conditions in first responders and corrections officers are work-related, provided the claim is filed within 180 days of leaving employment. Guglielmo filed his claim about 119 days after resigning.
The DOC accepted the compensability of his condition and covered his medical care, including a cardiac ablation in December 2021 and a hospital stay for complications in February 2022. After recovering, Guglielmo returned to work as a security officer at Valencia College in January 2022, but missed four days in February due to complications from the ablation.
In April and June 2022, Guglielmo filed petitions for benefits, seeking temporary total disability (TTD), temporary partial disability (TPD), permanent impairment benefits (PIB), and related penalties and fees. The DOC denied indemnity benefits, arguing that Guglielmo was not an employee on the date of his heart episode and had no earnings in the thirteen weeks prior, so his average weekly wage (AWW) should be zero.
The Judge of Compensation Claims agreed with the DOC, finding that Guglielmo’s AWW was $0.00 and denying his claims for indemnity benefits. The judge reasoned that since Guglielmo had resigned 119 days before the “date of accident,” there was no contract of employment or wages to calculate benefits.
Guglielmo appealed, arguing that the relevant wages should be those earned during his last period of hazardous employment, not the literal date of his medical event. The First District Court of Appeal agreed in part, holding that in occupational disease cases, the “time of injury” for calculating AWW is the period of last injurious exposure, not the date the disease manifests. Since Guglielmo worked full-time and earned $673.20 per week in the 13 weeks before leaving the DOC, those wages should be used to determine his benefits. The court remanded the case for the judge to award five days of TTD benefits and determine PIB payments based on an 11% impairment rating.
The court emphasized that once the employer accepts compensability under the “heart-lung statute,” it concedes that the claimant was a covered employee exposed to occupational hazards. Technical employment status on the date of disability does not negate liability for benefits if statutory prerequisites are met. The decision was grounded in statutory interpretation and did not involve specific insurance policy clauses.
For insurance professionals, especially those handling public sector workers’ comp, this ruling is a clear signal: the period of exposure is what matters for calculating benefits, not whether the claimant was still on the payroll when symptoms appeared. The decision is not yet final and remains subject to further motions under Florida’s appellate rules, but it’s a strong reminder to look beyond technical employment status when evaluating similar claims. In Florida, at least for now, exposure trumps the calendar.
