Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 185.34 (2025)
Disability in line of duty.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
185.34 Disability in line of duty.—For any municipality, chapter plan, local law municipality, or local law plan under this chapter, any condition or impairment of health of any and all police officers employed in the state caused by tuberculosis, hypertension, heart disease, or hardening of the arteries, resulting in total or partial disability or death, shall be presumed to be accidental and suffered in line of duty unless the contrary be shown by competent evidence. Any condition or impairment of health caused directly or proximately by exposure, which exposure occurred in the active performance of duty at some definite time or place without willful negligence on the part of the police officer, resulting in total or partial disability, shall be presumed to be accidental and suffered in the line of duty, provided that such police officer shall have successfully passed a physical examination upon entering such service, which physical examination including electrocardiogram failed to reveal any evidence of such condition, and, further, that such presumption shall not apply to benefits payable under or granted in a policy of life insurance or disability insurance. This section shall be applicable to all police officers only with reference to pension and retirement benefits under this chapter.
History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 57-340; s. 1, ch. 67-580; s. 62, ch. 79-40; s. 21, ch. 86-42; s. 72, ch. 99-1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1960–2012 · leading case: Universal Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012).
Universal Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012). “2 (quoting § 185.34, Fla. Stat. (1957)). Lastly, a review of the bill that enacted the statute (chapter 2005-111) and the staff analyses associated with that bill reveal that nothing in any of those documents indicates that the presumption articulated in section 627.”
Caldwell v. Div. of Ret., Etc., 372 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1979). “Section 185.34, Florida Statutes (1961), provided that any impairment of health of police officers caused by heart disease is presumed to have been suffered in line of duty unless the contrary be shown *440 by competent evidence.”
City of Coral Gables v. Brasher, 120 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1960). “December 19, 1958, the City answered the complaint and admitted all material allegations of fact therein, but contended, as did the Retirement Board, (1) Brasher was not entitled to the presumption created by the statute, Chapter 57-340, Laws of 1957, F.S.A. § 185.34; (2) that…”
City of Coral Gables v. Brasher, 132 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). “The court upheld the validity of section 185.34, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., 2 but remanded the cause with directions that the City of Coral Gables be permitted to introduce evidence to rebut the presumption of service- *444 connected disability raised by the statute and to enter such…”
City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Health Ins. Trust, 559 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). “The Trust then filed the instant declaratory judgment action against the City, asking the court to declare that Section 185.34, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), 1 applied to claims brought under the Workers’ Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (1987).”
Connor v. Town of Palm Beach, 398 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “The officer’s attorney argued that Section 185.34, Florida Statutes (1977) entitled his client to a presumption that any heart disease was suffered in the line of duty unless the contrary is shown by competent evidence.”
Bd. of Trs., Town of Palm Beach Employees Ret. Sys. v. Connor, 453 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “There is no question in our minds about the right of appellee, a municipal police officer, to the statutory presumption contained in section 185.34, Florida Statutes (1983). Any condition or impairment of health of any and all police officers employed in the state caused by…”
Dabbs v. City of Tampa, 50 Fla. Supp. 2d 82 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991). “4 Accordingly, based on the interplay of these statutes in relation to the record in this case, it is evident that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the presumption created by section 185.34 in that he does not fall within the definitional ambit of “police…”
Pfeiffer v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 436 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). “First, he is not a “police officer” as defined by Section 185.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.