South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Appellate Court Overturns Summary Judgment in Bad-Faith Insurance Case Stemming From Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Published on: December 18, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has found that a bad-faith medical malpractice insurance case should go to trial. In Samiian v. First Professionals Insurance Co., a doctor performed plastic surgery on a patient who remained at his clinic following the procedure. After visiting with the patient at the end of the day, the physician apparently left the man in the care of a surgical technician. The technician reportedly administered intravenous medication to the patient before the patient unexpectedly suffered a fatal heart attack. On the following day, the doctor notified his medical malpractice insurance carrier regarding the potential for a future lawsuit.

Soon afterward, the deceased patient’s estate filed a notice of its intent to file a lawsuit against the physician, pursuant to Section 766.106(2) of the Florida Statutes. The doctor’s insurer then retained an attorney to represent him. Following an investigation into the matter, the company decided to tender a settlement check for the doctor’s full insurance policy limits of $250,000 to the deceased patient’s personal representative. Two days after the check was delivered, the lawyer who was retained by the insurer offered to submit the matter of economic damages to binding arbitration. In his letter, the attorney stated the insurance company was not amending its offer to settle the case for the full medical malpractice policy limits. Despite this, the arbitration offer was not contingent upon a damages limit. After the estate accepted the offer to arbitrate, a panel of neutral arbitrators issued an award of over $35 million in favor of the deceased patient’s estate. The arbitral award plus interest was later confirmed by a Florida court and also upheld on appeal.

Middle District of Florida Remands Negligence Lawsuit Back to State Court

Published on: December 14, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers has remanded a car accident case back to state court after the defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the federal diversity jurisdiction requirements enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In Bess v. Day, a Florida man was apparently injured in a car accident that was allegedly caused by a Canadian citizen. Following the crash, the hurt man filed a negligence complaint against the driver and his spouse in a Florida court. The defendants then removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship. Under federal law, diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states and the amount of damages exceeds $75,000.

In response to the defendants’ removal, the injured man filed a motion for remand back to state court. According to the man, the defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy in the case was more than $75,000. The federal court stated removal statutes must be narrowly construed by courts, and any ambiguities are required to be resolved in favor of remanding a case back to state court. In addition, the Middle District said the party who seeks to remove a lawsuit to federal court bears the burden of establishing that removal is appropriate.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Fatal Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: December 11, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal has affirmed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in a fatal pedestrian accident case. In Panzera v. O’Neal, a man was unfortunately struck by a semi-truck while attempting to cross Interstate 75 on foot in 2011. Following the crash, the man’s estate filed a negligence lawsuit, seeking damages from the truck driver and the supermarket chain that employed him. In response, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

In general, a motion for summary judgment asks a court to rule that there are no material facts in dispute and declare that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When reviewing such a motion, a court is required to view all information offered in the most favorable light for the non-moving party. If a material fact is in dispute, a motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

Appellate Court Reverses Order Denying Costs in Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: December 8, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has reversed a Judge of Compensation Claims’ order denying an injured employee’s request for stipulated costs in a workers’ compensation case. In Gobel v. American Airlines, a Florida worker successfully pursued medical benefits payments from his employer following a workplace accident. After that, the parties jointly submitted a stipulation request related to the employee’s legal fees and costs to a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”). As part of the stipulation, the man’s employer agreed to pay him $200 in costs.

The JCC reviewed the parties’ request and ultimately denied the stipulation regarding costs. According to the JCC, it was unclear whether the $200 constituted actual costs or disguised legal expenses, since the parties failed to submit supporting documentation with their request. In response, the hurt worker argued that such supporting documentation was not required under Rule 60Q-6.123(5) of the Florida Administrative Code because the stipulated amount was less than $250. The JCC rejected the woman’s claim and stated the rule was not valid.

Middle District of Florida Holds Bad Faith Insurance Claim Should be Decided by a Jury

Published on: December 4, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Middle District of Florida has denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a bad faith insurance lawsuit. In Hines v. Geico Indemnity Co., a Florida woman apparently caused a motor vehicle collision while driving a car that was owned by her husband. At the time, the vehicle carried liability coverage with bodily injury limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per incident. Following the car accident, the wife was arrested for driving while intoxicated.

After the crash, the other motorist retained a lawyer to represent her in the case. The driver’s attorney then offered to settle her claim against the couple and their insurance company for the bodily injury policy limits of $25,000. The attorney also submitted medical and other evidence in support of the driver’s request for damages. The couple’s insurer responded by stating the driver’s personal injury protection coverage already paid her $10,000. In addition, the insurance company offered to pay the injured motorist $3,500 to resolve her claim.

Florida Appeals Court Overturns Unsupported Additur Award in Traffic Wreck Case

Published on: December 1, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals has overturned an additur award after the trial court failed to provide its findings in support of the additional damages. In Ferrer v. La Serna, a woman was apparently injured when her vehicle was struck by another car in Florida. A few days after the traffic collision, the woman sought medical treatment from her physician. The doctor diagnosed the woman with a neck injury and found that the woman’s spine was afflicted with a degenerative condition. According to the physician, although the crash did not cause the degenerative condition, it did cause the woman to begin suffering symptoms.

The woman’s doctor recommended that she refrain from receiving chiropractic care for her car accident injuries. According to the physician, such adjustments could potentially aggravate her underlying spinal condition. Against the advice of her doctor, the woman purportedly saw a chiropractor several times per week for multiple months.

Tampa Court Holds Woman Entitled to Receive UM Auto Accident Benefits

Published on: November 30, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Tibbetts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., a Florida woman sought uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits from her parents’ automobile insurer following a September 2014 traffic wreck. At the time of the collision, the woman was living with her parents and riding as a passenger in one of the vehicles insured under the policy. The insurance policy provided $100,000 in both bodily injury and UM benefits. Although the driver of the vehicle was not a named insured, nor did he have permission to be operating the vehicle, the woman was a “resident relative” under the policy terms. Additionally, the driver did not possess motor vehicle insurance at the time of the incident.

Following the car accident, the insurer denied the woman’s request for UM benefits. In response to the insurance company’s denial of benefits, the woman filed a lawsuit against the company in the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. According to the woman, the insurer breached the terms of the insurance policy by refusing to pay her UM benefits.

Southern District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Negligence Claim Filed Against Cruise Ship Company Following Passenger’s Snorkeling Excursion Drowning

Published on: November 24, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Pucci v. Carnival Corp., a woman set sail on a seven-day cruise with her family. While on board the ship, the woman purchased a snorkeling excursion that was marketed and sold on the vessel using brochures and television advertisements. The cruise ship company also marketed the excursion on its website. Despite the company’s sales efforts, the snorkeling excursion was operated by a third business which shared all profits and losses with the cruise company.

Prior to purchasing the snorkeling excursion, the woman apparently informed cruise ship employees that she was not a strong swimmer. Despite this, the workers reportedly assured the woman that she would remain safe during the event. After receiving the supposed assurances, the woman purchased a ticket for the snorkeling excursion.

Court Rules Light Duty Work Not Sheltered Employment in Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: November 20, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Moore v. Servicemaster Commercial Services, a commercial housekeeper apparently hurt her right shoulder at work. As a result of her workplace harm, the woman underwent surgery. Following her surgical procedure, the housekeeper was authorized to return to work with restrictions after about one week of recovery time. The woman’s doctor also recommended that she undergo three weeks of physical therapy. Although the woman’s employer offered to place the woman in a light-duty position, the housekeeper stated she was experiencing significant pain and refused to return to work until after she underwent physical therapy. About one month later, the housekeeper was terminated by her employer for failure to return to work or call in.

Approximately two months later, the housekeeper completed the physical therapy that was recommended by her physician. After that, her treating doctor determined the housekeeper obtained maximum medical improvement. In addition, the physician assigned the housekeeper a permanent impairment rating. Prior to completing physical therapy, the worker obtained a new job that began about six weeks later.

Insurance Company Ordered to Pay Legal Fees and Costs After Denying Benefits to Insured Florida Driver Following Collision

Published on: November 17, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Explorer Insurance Co. v. Cajusma, a Florida man obtained liability coverage from an insurance company. Later, the man and his passengers were involved in a traffic wreck with another vehicle that was carrying two individuals. Following the accident, the man and his passengers each sought chiropractic care from a local clinic. Each of the man’s passengers also sought personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits.

Next, the driver of the other vehicle and his own passenger filed a negligence claim against the man. After the man’s insurer denied each individual’s claim, they filed separate lawsuits against the man in a Florida court. In addition, the chiropractic clinic filed a lawsuit against the man and one of his passengers, seeking payment for the services it performed following the collision.