South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Court of Appeals Determines Injured Worker Qualifies for Permanent Total Disability

Published on: April 4, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeals issued a ruling that an injured worker who could not find a job at an approved level of physical restriction within his vocational capabilities qualified for permanent total disability. The injured employee worked at a trucking company for nearly three decades and suffered an injury on the job. The injured worker reached maximum medical improvement, the point where his health could not get better even with the assistance of medical care, and sought permanent total disability.

Different types of employment require varying levels of physical exertion. Depending on the type of injury sustained, an injured worker may need to adjust his or her level of exertion on the job. The U.S. Department of Labor classifies the different levels of exertion as sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy work. The injured worker in this case was employed as a driver of semi tractor-trailers and field tractors, which was determined to be medium work. Medium work is defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles as work that requires lifting of 50 pounds with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. The injured worker was assessed by a doctor who reported that his injury limited his physical restrictions at work to light to medium duties. Light duty is defined as lifting less than 20 pounds with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.

The employer hired someone to do a re-employment assessment for the injured worker. The assessor determined that the injured worker should return to work for the same company as a security guard, as that was the only position available that stayed within the realm of the injured worker’s physical exertion limitations. However, the employer had no open security guard positions at the time of the assessment and made no effort to offer a security guard position to the injured employee.

The Court of Appeals looked at whether the injured worker was able to engage in at least sedentary employment within a 50 mile radius of his residence. The assessor stated that the employer’s security guard post was the the only suitable position as the injured worker could not be placed anywhere else. The Judge of Compensation Claims had previously ruled that the injured worker did not show he could not engage in at least sedentary employment, but the Court of Appeals said the opposite was true. The court thought the fact that his own employer couldn’t even provide him with a job showed that he was unable to find appropriate employment that would accommodate his injury.

Florida Court of Appeal Allows Boat Retailer to Bring Third Party Claim Against Manufacturers

Published on: April 2, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Second District Court of Appeal recently ruled in a case regarding personal injuries sustained in a flash explosion on a boat. The case arose when a retailer sold the boat to a couple and later performed repairs. There was a flash explosion on the boat and according to the couple, it happened because of a leak in the fuel pump.

The couple filed a complaint against the retailer for negligence and strict liability, claiming that the retailer failed to properly service, repair and inspect the boat and failed to warn them of the defect. They also asserted claims for negligence and strict liability against the boat manufacturer, the pump manufacturer, and the engine manufacturer alleging that there were failures to warn them of the defect and that they allowed the defect to pass through their shops undetected.

The retailer filed an answer and affirmative defense in 2011, before the plaintiffs’ depositions were taken. Later that year, they served notice that they would drop the various manufacturing defendants without prejudice, but did not file an amended complaint or withdraw the allegation of a defective pump.

The following year, the retailer tried to file a third-party complaint against the dismissed manufacturing defendants, claiming that the couple had sued it on the basis that it had sold them a boat with a defective pump. It claimed that it hadn’t changed the pump, engine or boat and that if it were liable, its liability would be vicarious or secondary to that of the dismissed manufacturing defendants. The retailer asked for contribution from the manufacturers.

Injured At Sea: Compensation Often Available For Florida Sea Vessel Workers

Published on: March 29, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

As a coastal state, Florida derives much of its economy from sea-based commerce and activities. Cruise ships, commercial vessels, and pleasure boats all provide jobs to Florida residents and attract tourists from around the world. Owners and operators of all different types of vessels owe a duty of care to the invited guests and workmen that sail aboard their respective ships. If an injury or death occurs on board due to negligence, then suit may be filed in either state or federal court, depending on the individual circumstances of the injury.

If a worker gets sick or injured while onboard a commercial vessel, they may be able to sue for maintenance and cure. Maintenance and cure are long-standing remedies provided by federal maritime and admiralty law. Maintenance is a daily allowance given to those injured during their period of recovery until they reach maximum medical improvement or, in the alternative, are ready to report to duty in the same physical condition they were in prior to the injury. Cure is payment for reasonable and necessary medical expenses including doctor visits, medical equipment, testing, and transportation for medical appointments.

The Jones Act is federal maritime and admiralty legislation that allows injured seamen to recover damages sustained. The Jones Act may award compensation for lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering, and future wages. The Jones Act was created to maximize recovery and compensation for injured workers, while limiting litigation. Damages for maintenance and cure can be recovered without showing the vessel operator or owner was negligent, but courts limit the amount of recovery to expenses actually incurred. If it can be shown the employer was negligent, then the injured party may be able to recover pain and suffering.

Families may be able to recover for injured seamen through a wrongful death action or suit under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). DOHSA pre-empts state causes of action when the event that led to the death occurs more than three nautical miles from shore. A personal representative may try to pursue on behalf of a child, dependent relative, husband, or wife for pecuniary damages, which are defined as loss of support, services, and inheritance. Proof of these damages must be supported by facts with a reasonable amount of certainty.

Potential for Fracking Operations in Florida Presents Concerns of Silica Inhalation

Published on: March 27, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Legislation was recently introduced by a state representative that would require industries to report the chemicals injected into the ground while fracking in Florida. Currently there is no fracking operation in Florida, although there has been recent speculation that fracking would begin in South Florida near other oil and gas operations. Fracking is a technique used to stimulate oil and gas production by forcing water through the ground at high pressures. The process has been scrutinized for its potential to damage the environment and expose workers to silica inhalation.

Silica and asbestos exposure can cause serious damage to the exposed person. Asbestos was a form of insulation commonly used in construction because of its sound absorption and ability resist fire, heat, and electrical damage. Silica is a material found in several types of rocks that are frequently used in construction. Both are tiny particles that can remain in the lungs once inhaled, accumulating and causing scarring and inflammation. This affects the exposed person’s ability to breathe and often results in serious illness like mesothelioma.

Employers of construction businesses are obligated to maintain their workers’ health and safety, including exposure to silica or asbestos. If they fail to use ordinary and reasonable care on the work site, and either fail to warn employees of potential harm or neglect to maintain a work site that minimizes exposure, the employer or owner may be liable for injuries the employees suffer. Manufacturers of products that contain silica or asbestos may also be liable for injuries suffered due to product defects. The product itself may be considered unsafe, and inadequate warnings or instructions for safe use may be absent. Safety products themselves that are designed to protect you from silica or asbestos exposure may also fail, creating a breach in the manufacturer’s obligation to provide a safe product.

Florida legislation determines who can file an asbestos or silica related claim. A plaintiff must show that physical impairment was a result of a medical condition to which exposure to asbestos was a substantial factor. Extensive medical documentation is required by a qualified medical professional. Medical examiners assess the impairment rating of the individual’s lung capacity. There must also be proof of the injured’s substantial occupational exposure to asbestos.

State Court of Appeals Allows Hospital to Take Patient’s Personal Injury Award

Published on: March 25, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Eighteen Florida counties allow hospitals to pay for a patient’s care by granting them the ability to take a portion of the patient’s legal judgment or settlement. This is called a hospital lien, or a right to secure a debt. A patient may seek treatment at a hospital for an injury sustained in a car or work accident. If that patient sues the negligent party and has unpaid medical bills, the hospital can file a lien against any potential judgments or settlements to recover the amount billed.

Wisconsin has a state statute granting similar rights to hospitals to enforce liens against a patient’s judgment or settlement. The state’s appellate court recently handed down a decision in favor of a hospital and its ability to enforce a hospital lien. In that case, the patient qualified for Medicare, but the hospital chose to enforce the lien instead of billing his medical care costs of $19,423 to Medicare. The plaintiff sued, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital. The injured party argued that federal law mandates hospitals to bill Medicare for those who qualify for Medicare and not the individual. The injured plaintiff depended on a memo from the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services that interpreted the Medicare provision to bar hospital from enforcing liens after the Medicare billing period expired.

The trial and appellate courts, however, decided that the Medicare law does not require hospitals to withdraw their liens after the Medicare billing period had expired and that 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii) allows Medicare to become the “second payer” if there’s expected third party liability. The appellate court rejected the injured plaintiff’s reliance on the DHHS memo, stating that the memo does not provide a reasonable interpretation of the Medicare law.

This past year, the Supreme Court of Florida declared Florida’s state law granting hospital liens unconstitutional in Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Florida. It allowed local ordinances to stand, but determined that the state lien law was a ‘special law’ pertaining to the creation, extension, or impairment of liens based on private contracts. The court considered the care between the teaching hospital and the patient to be a private contract, so a lien cannot be enforced through legal action under state law. A Florida hospital may be able to enforce a lien against an injured party’s judgment, but only if the hospital is in a county with an ordinance granting them that right. The hospital must follow the proper procedures to file the lien so that all parties are notified that the lien exists. Insurers are supposed to check for all potential hospital liens before issuing a check to the injured party.

Injured parties often contest the amount of the hospital lien. Hospitals enforce liens attached to uninsured parties or parties who qualified for federal entitlement benefits, but they secure the amount of the original bill – not the amount that would have been billed to a program like Medicare or Medicaid. The original hospital bill is often grossly different than the negotiated amount an insurance company pays, and the hospitals may even seek the difference from the insurance company and the original bill, even though the injured party would not have been responsible for that amount.

Florida Court of Appeals Allows Condominium Resident to Sue Condominium Association

Published on: March 22, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals handed down a ruling against a condominium association who failed to repair a buckled section of carpet in a common area of the condominium. The injured plaintiff and other condominium owners had repeatedly complained to the Board of Directors of the Association about the carpet, but the Association did nothing to remedy it. It was known that the carpet buckled especially after a cleaning while still wet.

The injured owner sued the Miami-based Association for failing to repair the carpet. She suffered injuries to arm, hand, and neck. The Association moved for summary judgment, alleging that there was no valid claim as the buckled carpet was an “open and obvious” hazard. The trial court agreed with the Association, dismissing the injured owner’s claim. The injured owner appealed, arguing that Association was under a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe and serviceable condition for the residents, thus still responsible for repairing the carpet in the common area.

The Florida Court of Appeals looked to a previous decision, Kopf v. City of Miami Beach, 653 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). This case had similar facts, where the injured sued the City of Miami Beach after she tripped on a portion of sidewalk that was cracked and deteriorated. The City, like the condominium association, claimed that the danger was open and obvious, and the trial court precluded the plaintiff from suit. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling, stating that there were issues of negligence, comparative negligence, and causation which can only be resolved by the jury. The court did not feel that a landlord should be shielded from their duty and liability for their negligence, simply because the hazard could be seen.

In another case, Lotto v. Point East Two Condominium Corporation, Inc., 702 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), the injured tripped on a cracked sidewalk attached to the condominium complex. The injured sued, alleging that the association failed to warn of the dangerous condition and neglected to maintain the premises in a safe condition. The Court of Appeals thought the obvious danger did not merit a duty to warn, but the association was still under a duty to repair the sidewalk.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals ruled that the condominium association had a duty to maintain the premises, but questions of comparative negligence by the injured remained. The court determined that the question of whether the injured plaintiff was also negligent should be given to a jury since she chose to repeatedly frequent an area that had an open and obvious danger. While the appellate court believed that the condominium association had a duty to repair, the court suggested that the injured plaintiff may also be found negligent, thus potentially reducing the association’s liability and obligation to make the injured plaintiff whole. In Florida, if a plaintiff is found comparatively negligent, but the defendant mostly negligent, the plaintiff may still recover, but the amount of recovery is reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff’s negligence.

Supreme Court Assesses Liability of Generic Drug Makers

Published on: March 20, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments regarding whether or not federal law regulating generic drugs preempts New Hampshire’s design-defect law. The case may determine whether or not the injured plaintiff is able to recover from the generic manufacturer. The trial court and lower appellate court found that federal law did not preempt New Hampshire’s strict product liability law. However, other recent Supreme Court decisions barring recovery may guide the result of this case, depending on whether there’s enough of a distinction between a state law requiring a duty to warn and a state law allowing recovery under strict liability.

Florida also allows recovery under the theory of strict liability for defective products, where negligence and intent to cause harm does not have to be shown in order for an injured plaintiff to recover. The design has to be defective, and injury or other damage shown to be caused as a result of the defect. Florida’s law includes both consumers and bystanders and does not require that the product be shown to be “unreasonably dangerous”.

The injured plaintiff in the current Supreme Court case took a prescribed, generic anti-inflammatory medicine for shoulder pain. As a result, she suffered from two painful syndromes, Stevens-Johnsons Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis which caused her skin to slough off, esophageal burns, near-blindness, and lung injuries. She sued the manufacturer of the generic drug, claiming the medication was “unreasonably dangerous”, and that the risks outweighed the potential benefits.

The Food and Drug Administration had previously deemed the brand-named version of the drug as “safe and effective”. That not only allowed the brand-named drug to sell its product on the market, but the generic versions to sell with that designation as well, including the drug that harmed the plaintiff in this case before the Court. The F.D.A. says that a generic drug, by law, must contain the same active ingredients in identical amounts as the brand named product. It should also be the same in dosage, safety, strength, how it is taken, quality, performance, and intended use. These are supposed to be seen as the “therapeutic equivalent” to brand-named drugs. They are also required to have the same warning labels as their brand-named counterpart.

The outcome of this case will guide whether or not an injured plaintiff will be able to sue in state court for injuries caused by generic drugs. The manufacturers of the drug argue that the strict liability imposed by the state adds duties to the drug manufacturers that are not congruent with federal laws requiring “sameness” between generic and brand-named drugs. Other recent Supreme Court decisions have held that federal law preempted a state failure-to-warn action. The injured plaintiff’s attorney, however, is arguing that there is a distinction between her action, centered around strict liability, and the ruling of the prior Supreme Court decision.

Florida Appellate Court Grants Mistrial to Injured Plaintiff

Published on: March 14, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Howard v. Palmer, granting a new trial to the plaintiff. Defense counsel repeatedly made improper statements during the trial implying the plaintiff’s actions were all centered around suing the defendant. Florida case law has established precedent against statements made during trial that can lead a jury to believe that the plaintiff is very litigious and seeking deep pockets. The defense attorney in this case flagrantly ignored the plaintiff’s motion, granted by the judge, to refrain from any references to the plaintiff speaking to an attorney immediately after the accident.

In Florida you have a right to contact an attorney at any time on any matter. The defense attorney in Howard, made other inappropriate remarks in the midst of the jury trial, using commentary buried in his questions that referred to photographs being taken for the purpose of a lawsuit and that Comcast was attached to the defendant company. Implying that the plaintiff is “litigious” is irrelevant to whether or not the defendant was negligent and can cause the jury to be biased against the injured party.

In personal injury cases, whether they are caused by car accidents or slip and fall conditions, an injured party must show that the other party was negligent and that their negligence was the cause of their injury. Proof of negligence is shown through eye witness testimony, photographs, and related documents that reveal the conditions of the scene where the injury occurred or the objects involved, like a car or spilled item. Photographs and witness statements taken closer to the time of the injury better reflect what happened. The burden of proof falls on the plaintiff to show that it was more likely than not that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury, so the injured party needs all evidence available to meet that burden. The Florida Court of Appeals has repeatedly found that statements inferring a tortious plaintiff are not relevant to prove negligence or defend against a negligence claim.

In addition to the proof of the injury, the injured party must also prove the monetary damages incurred as a result of the injury. The injured party is able to recover compensation for lost wages, medical expenses, property damage, mental distress, loss of consortium, and emotional distress. It is essential to keep track of expenses and provide documents to your retained counsel like wage statements, hospital bills, and repair receipts. Mental distress, loss of consortium, and emotional distress do not require a calculation. Proof of future lost earnings and medical bills are harder to estimate and may require expert testimony to show what those amounts may look like.

Florida Governor Declares March as Developmental Disabilities Month

Published on: March 8, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Gov. Rick Scott declared March 7th to be Developmental Disabilities Day and March as Developmental Disabilities Month. The declaration of honorary titles highlighted the announcement that 36 million dollars of much needed funding would be budgeted in the 2013-2014 fiscal year to the Agency for Persons with Disabilities. More people will be able to enroll in home and community based services. The Florida Families First Budget will also provide 2.5 million dollars to approximately 1000 people who want to work so they may participate in job internships or see employment coaches.

Florida has been proactive in helping those with disabilities, using demonstration programs like the Florida Freedom Initiative. The Initiative focuses on aiding Medicaid beneficiaries with developmental disabilities who use long-term care and services. The goal is to use an alternative system of services where cash is allocated to the recipient instead of agency-based services. The beneficiary recipient is given the opportunity to choose the type of long-term support services themselves. The goal is to promote work, savings, and development of personally earned income.

Florida’s Agency for Persons with Disabilities and the Federal Social Security Administration both provide excellent opportunities for citizens who qualify. However, obtaining Supplemental Security Income or Disability Benefits can be a daunting process. To receive an SSI benefit you must be over 65 years of age, legally blind, or meet the definition of permanent disability. You are considered disabled by the Social Security Administration if 1) you are unable to perform work you performed before, 2) convince SSA that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition, and 3) your disability is expected to last a year or result in death. If you seek benefits, you may apply online or in person at a Social Security Office. Data collected by SSA shows that only 34.8% of applications were awarded at all levels of adjudication in 2010, so the chance of the SSA denying your application is high. If you are denied, there are four levels of appeal you may need to utilize: reconsideration, hearing by an administrative law judge, review by the appeals council; and federal court review.

Gathering the correct paperwork is important to overcome any technical or medical denials. Technical denials include mistakes in paperwork or missing documents. Proper documentation of one’s medical condition is absolutely essential for a determination of disabled under SSA’s rules. You may be denied if the medical evidence does not adequately reflect the extent of your disability, if the evidence presented isn’t relevant to the claim, if you have the type of disability that is difficult to prove in medical records, or you simply do not meet the guidelines for approval.

Florida Court of Appeals Allows Construction Worker to Sue Fellow Subcontractor for Gross Negligence

Published on: March 7, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeals recently issued two opinions in one case, Villalta v. Cornn Intl., that assessed whether workers’ compensation statutory immunity applied to a contractor and subcontractor. A construction worker was finishing drywall when his ladder slipped into a cutout left by other subcontractors. He fell through the cutout and died from his injuries, and the personal representative of his estate brought suit against the contractor and all subcontractors tied to the project.

A Florida construction contractor hired two subcontractors, one for drywall installation, and one for HVAC installation. The drywall subcontractor hired their own subcontractor to do the finishing. The sub-subcontractor employed the deceased plaintiff. The cutout that caused the plaintiff to fall was made by the HVAC subcontractors, who did not warn the other subcontractors of its presence or use the proper guidelines to ensure safety of the area. Workers’ compensation was available to the deceased’s workers family, but they elected to also pursue a personal injury action against all liable parties.

Florida’s workers’ compensation is a state-mandated insurance fund designed to provide injured workers or their families with the compensation they need when an employee is injured or killed at work. Because compensation is ensured, Florida also grants immunity to employers unless they committed an intentional tort, and to fellow subcontractors unless there was gross negligence. When the injury or death occurs on a construction site, the relationships are assessed to determine which statutory immunity applies, if at all.

The Court decided that the contractor was immune from a personal injury suit because they were in a vertical relationship, defined in Mena v. J.I.L. Construction Group, Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Barker, and also Dempsey v. G & E 3Construction Co. The only exception to immunity is when an intentional tort (when someone has been hurt purposefully) has occurred, and the Court ruled that it didn’t exist in this case. The HVAC subcontractor is also granted immunity, however the exception is merely gross negligence (willful and wanton misconduct) instead of an intentional tort.

After litigation began, the HVAC subcontractor moved for summary judgment, arguing that they are entitled to immunity. The trial court initially agreed, but the Florida Court of Appeals looked at the facts and ruled that it was for a jury to decide whether or not the events that led to the employee’s death were gross negligence or standard negligence. The deceased employee and his representative now get to move forward in the personal injury suit against the HVAC contractor.