Workers' Compensation

First District Appellate Court Affirms Decision Denying Florida Workers’ Compensation Benefits Over Employee Misrepresentation

Published on: December 30, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Clark v. R&L Carriers, a semi-truck driver was allegedly injured on the job in two separate traffic collisions in 2012. According to the trucker, he suffered serious neck, back, and shoulder injuries in the two accidents. Following the crashes, the man’s employer authorized medical care for both incidents. Later, the employer received a copy of the man’s medical records that predated the 2012 collisions. In the healthcare records, the trucker apparently complained of injuries that were similar to those for which he sought compensation from his employer. Around the same time, the driver’s employer also learned that the man engaged in prior litigation over this harm in another state. As a result, the trucker’s employer refused to compensate him for any further benefits related to the 2012 tractor-trailer accidents, based on the truck driver’s alleged misrepresentation.

Following a hearing on the matter, a Florida Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) ruled that the truck driver committed misrepresentation when he did not alert his physicians to his prior medical history. Because of this, the JCC held that the trucker’s workers’ compensation claims were barred under Florida law. In response, the worker asked Florida’s First District Court of Appeal to review the decision.

Supreme Court of Florida Holds Deceased Worker’s Estate Cannot Recover Tort Judgment from Employer’s Insurance Company

Published on: December 10, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co., a Florida man was tragically killed in a workplace accident. Following the fatal incident, the decedent’s wife agreed to a workers’ compensation settlement with the man’s employer and the employer’s insurance company. The wife also signed a release stating the settlement was the sole remedy for which the insurer would provide coverage to the employer.

Prior to the workers’ compensation settlement, the man’s estate filed a wrongful death action against the man’s employer. As a result, a default judgment of nearly $10 million was entered in favor of the estate. After the employer’s insurer refused to pay the judgment, the estate filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the insurance company in a Florida court. The insurer removed the case to the Middle District of Florida and filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, the insurer argued that a workers’ compensation exclusion included in the employer’s policy barred the estate from suing the company. The federal court then granted the insurance company’s motion and entered judgment in its favor.

Appellate Court Holds Videotaped Depositions May be a Reimbursable Litigation Expense Under Florida Workers’ Compensation Statute

Published on: November 17, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Lane v. Workforce Business Services, Inc., a man sought benefits from his employer under Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes after he suffered an injury at work. The hurt worker filed a petition seeking a determination regarding his entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits after his employer refused to compensate him for the harm he sustained in the workplace accident. Following extensive litigation, the man and his employer entered into an agreement that the employer would accept compensability for the man’s injuries. As part of the settlement agreement, the employer agreed to pay litigation costs and the worker’s statutory attorney’s fees.

The man next sought additional attorney’s fees before a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 57.105. The JCC denied the man’s request for additional legal fees and stated that such an award is not allowed in a workers’ compensation proceeding before a JCC. In addition, the JCC refused to award the injured man the costs associated with two videotaped depositions that were important to the case. The hurt worker then appealed the JCC’s decision to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Appeals Court Says Employer Who Failed to Comply With Florida Workers’ Compensation Laws Must Reimburse Hurt Employee

Published on: October 20, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Fortune v. Gulf Coast Tree Care, Inc., a Florida man’s shoulder became dislocated after he was assaulted while making a work-related delivery to a customer in 2011. Following the incident, the man was treated in an emergency room at a local hospital. After realigning his shoulder, the treating physician reportedly advised the injured man to seek follow-up care. Although the man notified his supervisor regarding the incident, and the supervisor came to both the scene of the assault and the emergency room, the supervisor apparently failed to file a timely notice of injury as required by Florida statute.

Less than two weeks later, the injured worker received follow-up care at a local Veterans Administration facility. About two months after the workplace assault, the injured man also underwent surgery related to the incident. Despite his work-related harm, the man continued his employment throughout his medical treatment.

Florida Appeals Court Overturns Denial of Benefits in Miami-Dade Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: October 13, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has reversed a decision denying an advance in workers’ compensation benefits that was rendered by a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”). In Bonner v. Miami Dade Public Schools, an employee who was out of work for about 18 months due to a work-related injury returned to work with a reduced salary. After returning to work, she sought a $2,000 advance from her employer under Florida Statute Section 440.20(12). This law allows an employee to request a workers’ compensation advance of up to $2,000 when the worker has suffered a “substantial loss of earning capacity or a physical impairment” as a result of an injury that took place at work. In addition, the statute also allows a worker to request a larger advance if a JCC deems the request to be reasonable.

After the woman provided uncontroverted testimony demonstrating that she suffered financial harm as a result of her workplace injury and the advance was necessary in order to pay her bills, a JCC denied her request. She then filed a workers’ compensation appeal with Florida’s First District.

11th Circuit Says Florida Workers’ Compensation Laws Apply to Temporary Driver Injured in Dump Truck Crash: Wesco Insurance Co. v. Casto

Published on: August 4, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Wesco Insurance Co. v. Casto, a man sued a Florida company in federal court for personal injuries he allegedly suffered in a collision while driving a dump truck that was owned by the company. In response to the lawsuit, the company sought defense and indemnity from its motor vehicle insurer. The insurance company then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the injured man was an employee at the time of his injury. According to the insurer, the man’s injury was subject to the Floridaworkers’ compensation statute and excluded from coverage pursuant to the terms of the company’s automobile policy. When a party to a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment, that party is asking the court to rule in his or her favor because no material facts are in dispute and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court granted the insurer’s motion, and the injured man filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the injured man argued that his harm was not properly subject to the workers’ compensation statute because he was not being compensated for driving the dump truck. Instead, he claimed that he was a volunteer. The man also claimed that the district court committed error when it granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was a volunteer or temporary worker who was not included under the company’s motor vehicle insurance coverage.

First, the 11th Circuit examined whether the injured man was in fact a volunteer at the time of the dump truck crash. The court stated the relevant inquiry regarding whether a person is a volunteer relates to the expectation of payment for services. Since the injured man testified that he expected to be compensated for driving the dump truck on the date of the accident, and no contrary evidence was offered to the district court, the appellate court held that the man was not a volunteer under Florida law.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Sheriff’s Deputy Injured in a Semi-Truck Crash While Commuting: Levy County Sheriff’s Office v. Allen

Published on: July 9, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has affirmed an order granting workers’ compensation benefits to a sheriff’s deputy who was hurt on his way to work. In Levy County Sheriff’s Office v. Allen, a deputy employed by the Levy County Sheriff’s Office for more than 41 years was traveling to work in his personal vehicle when he came upon a stalled semi-truck that was partially blocking one lane of a highway during the early morning hours. Due to the purported unsafe condition, the deputy stated he decided to stop and direct traffic around the big rig despite that he was assigned to provide security services at a local courthouse. The man testified that he also intended to call for additional law enforcement officers to assist him in removing the large vehicle from the highway. Unfortunately, the deputy was unable to stop his vehicle before striking the semi-truck. As a result of the unfortunate collision, the deputy apparently sustained significant personal injuries. At the time of the accident, the deputy was wearing his uniform and carrying both his assigned badge and weapon on his person.

Following the injury accident, the Levy County Sheriff’s Office workers’ compensation insurance carrier refused to pay any benefits to the deputy related to his accident injuries. According to the employer-insurer, the man’s harm did not result from his job duties because he was hurt while commuting to work. In addition, the carrier claimed the man’s harm did not arise out of his employment because his primary work assignment was to provide courthouse security services.

At an evidentiary hearing, both the deputy and several co-workers offered testimony stating Levy County Sheriff’s Office policy requires all deputies to address any obvious safety hazards whether or not they are currently on duty. According to a Judge of Compensation Claims, the deputy’s security assignment did not relieve him of his duty to resolve dangerous conditions such as that posed by the tractor-trailer. Also, the judge found that the man’s injury occurred while he was performing one of his primary job duties. Finally, the judge held that the deputy was “acting within the course of his employment” under Section 440.091(1) of the Florida Statutes. Because of this, the judge ordered that the man’s injury accident was compensable. The employer-insurer then appealed the judge’s decision to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Florida Appeals Court Clarifies Notice Requirements in Workers’ Compensation Case: Caceres v. Sedano’s Supermarkets

Published on: June 9, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeals has overturned a judge’s denial of a repetitive use injury workers’ compensation claim. In Caceres v. Sedano’s Supermarkets, a grocery store employee filed a workers’ compensation claim for repetitive trauma injuries he allegedly sustained while on the job several years earlier. A Judge of Compensation Claims denied the man’s claim without considering the extent of his harm because the judge determined that the man filed his claim too late to recover. The worker then appealed his case to Florida’s First District.

According to the appeals court, Florida law requires that an injured worker inform his or her employer of a workplace injury within 30 days of the date of the injury or the initial manifestation of the harm. The Court of Appeals stated that this statutory period normally begins to run on the date of last exposure in cases of repetitive harm. Next, Florida’s First District found that the Judge of Compensation Claims misinterpreted the statute when he ruled that the supermarket worker filed his claim too late without considering any evidence related to the date, cause, or extent of the worker’s alleged harm. Instead, the judge apparently read Section 440.185(1) of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Statute too narrowly when he summarily denied the man’s request for benefits because more than 30 days had passed since the purported injury had occurred. Since there was insufficient information with which to examine whether the man’s workers’ compensation claim was filed in a timely manner, the appellate court reversed the judge’s order and remanded the case for further consideration.

In Florida, individuals who are hurt at work are generally entitled to collect workers’ compensation benefits. Employees who suffered harm while on the job may be entitled to collect lost wages, temporary and permanent disability benefits, and medical expenses. Certain relatives of someone who was killed in a tragic workplace accident may also be entitled to collect funeral costs and other compensation. In some cases, a person who was hurt at work may be entitled to file a personal injury lawsuit against a third party, such as a defective equipment manufacturer, who was somehow partially responsible for a worker’s injury. Regardless of the type of harm suffered, it is vital for an injured employee to file his or her workers’ compensation claim in a timely manner.

One-time Change of Physician Rule in Florida

Published on: March 10, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida, you do not have the right to pick your doctor if you file a workers’ compensation claim. Most of the time the insurance carrier picks the doctor. Florida Statutes Section 440.13(2)(f) gives a worker the opportunity to change a physician once during the course of treatment for a work-related injury.

Once the change is granted and the employer or carrier notifies him or her, the original physician loses authority. The carrier must then authorize an alternative physician not professionally affiliated with the earlier physician within 5 calendar days after receiving the worker’s request. The worker can select the physician if the carrier doesn’t provide the name of the new physician.

Usually attorneys do not recommend that an injured worker change doctors during the early, occupational clinic stage. If you choose to change doctors at that time, you cannot again change doctors at the more important specialist stage. The second physician after your one-time change stays the doctor on the case unless the claimant moves or the initial treating physician no longer takes workers’ compensation cases or withdraws from the case for another reason.

Workers’ Compensation Immunity in Questionable Florida Employment Situation

Published on: February 7, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, a woman appealed form summary judgment entered in favor of a general contractor for whom her husband had worked. The case arose when the general contractor was managing a project at a processing plant in Miami. A plumbing company and its supplier was also on the job. A plumbing supply deliveryman delivered a steel pipe there one day in 2008.

At the site, a plumbing employee told him to take the steel pipe upstairs. He took it up to the second level. As he was walking back toward the lift, he stepped on a false ceiling and fell twenty feet to the ground. The deliveryman was left in a persistent vegetative state. His wife was appointed his guardian and sued the construction company and the plumbing company for negligence and loss of consortium.

Before she filed the lawsuit, the wife received workers’ compensation benefits from the workers’ compensation insurer for the plumbing company and the supplier. All defendants asserted workers’ compensation immunity. In Florida, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for employees hurt on the job. This means employers are immune from lawsuit by their employees based in tort.