South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Workers’ Compensation Benefits Denied Because Florida Man’s Need for Treatment was Caused by a Preexisting Condition

Published on: January 21, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Ceristaff, Inc. v. Owen, a worker who was employed as a gas appliance technician apparently hurt his shoulder when he fell at work in December 2013. Following the man’s workplace accident injury, the worker’s employer accepted compensability for the incident. As a result, the employee was authorized to seek medical treatment. After the worker was examined by a physician, however, the employer denied further workers’ compensation benefits due to the employee’s purported preexisting condition. According to the man’s treating doctor, the worker suffered from both osteoarthritis and rotator cuff arthropathy prior to his workplace accident.

After the man’s employer denied his request for additional medical care, the worker underwent an examination by his own designated medical expert. The expert recommended that the worker undergo additional shoulder surgery. According to the physician, the major contributing cause (“MCC”) for the employee’s need for a surgical procedure was his fall accident at work.

Orlando Federal Court Remands Child’s Premises Liability Claim Back to Florida State Court

Published on: January 18, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In A.Z. v. Bonnet Creek Resort Vacation Condominium Assoc., Inc., a minor was apparently injured when she tripped and fell while visiting a Florida condominium complex. The Georgia resident later filed a lawsuit against the property owner in Orange County, Florida Circuit Court. In response to the purportedly injured child’s complaint, the condo association removed the lawsuit to federal court.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a civil case may be removed to federal court when no federal questions exist if the parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. At the time of removal, the condominium association also requested discovery concerning the minor plaintiff’s Georgia citizenship. Following removal to federal court, the Middle District of Florida in Orlando ordered the parties to address whether remand back to a Florida state court was appropriate sua sponte, or of the court’s own accord. Generally, a court may take such an action without a request from either party if a case should be transferred to another court due to a conflict of interest, or the court believes it likely does not have jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute.

Florida Appeals Court Orders New Trial Following Multi-Million Dollar Judgment Against Tobacco Companies

Published on: January 14, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, several tobacco companies filed an appeal following a multi-million dollar judgment that was entered against them in Florida. In the case, the defendants faced claims of negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud, brought by the estate of a man who died from health complications that were apparently caused by his cigarette addiction. Following trial, the jury ultimately determined the deceased man, who began smoking at age 15, was 20.5 percent responsible for his own death.

On appeal to Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, the defendants claimed a new trial was warranted because the plaintiff’s attorney made repeated inflammatory statements in front of jurors. Additionally, the tobacco companies argued the trial court committed error when it instructed the jury regarding the estate’s fraud claims and entered a joint and several final judgment that potentially held each company accountable for the entirety of the jury award. The defendants also asserted that the jury’s compensatory and punitive damages awards should have been reduced or set aside by the lower court, and their right to due process was violated. In response to the tobacco companies’ appeal, the plaintiff claimed the trial court committed error when it sustained several of the defendants’ objections regarding statements made by the estate’s lawyer.

Appeals Court Overturns Denial of Compensation Advance in Broward County Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: January 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Mathis v. Broward County School Board, a woman apparently hurt her foot while working in Broward County. Unfortunately, the workplace injury resulted in a serious infection that required her to be hospitalized for a lengthy period. Although the woman’s employer initially accepted compensability for her harm, the employer refused to pay her indemnity benefits about two weeks later because a treating doctor asserted that the employee’s injury was not work-related. The employee then took unpaid leave for about one month before returning to work full-time.

While on unpaid leave, the worker filed a claim for an advance under Section 440.20(12)(c)2. of the Florida Statutes. Under the workers’ compensation law, an injured employee may seek “an advance payment of compensation” of up to $2,000 from a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”). After a JCC denied the woman’s request for an advance, she filed an appeal with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Jury’s Pain and Suffering Award Upheld Following Miami-Dade County Car Accident

Published on: January 7, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal has reinstated a jury’s award in a traffic accident case. In Ortega v. Belony, a Florida man suffered a broken neck in a Miami-Dade County automobile collision. Following the car accident, the man was hospitalized for eight days and wore a medical halo device for about three months. The man also refused to undergo the neck surgery that was recommended by his treating doctors.

While recuperating, the injured man apparently moved into a relative’s home, where he received assistance with his daily needs from his brother. According to the man, he suffered from sleeping difficulties and was forced to return to the hospital in order to have his halo adjusted. After the medical device was removed, the man reportedly suffered from mild neck discomfort and residual back pain. Despite this, the man’s physicians did not recommend further treatment for his traffic wreck injuries.

Florida Appeals Court Remands Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Ship Owners for a New Trial

Published on: January 4, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Soto v. McCulley Marine Services, Inc., a man tragically drowned near Longboat Pass on July 4, 2009 when he fell from a jet ski and was sucked underneath a moored barge while wearing a life preserver. At the time of the unfortunate drowning, a nearby dock was being used as a staging area in connection with an ongoing artificial reef program established by Manatee County. When the man drowned, the barge and a 65-foot tugboat that were permitted to participate in the reef building program were both moored at the dock.

Following the man’s untimely passing, his estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the owner of the two ships. According to the man’s personal representative, the ships were docked in a negligent manner. As a result, the configuration of the vessels allegedly exacerbated the strong tides that were present in the area and caused the man to be pulled beneath the barge despite his safety jacket.

Appellate Court Issues Ruling Regarding Psychiatric Care and Resulting Temporary Disability in Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: December 28, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Boley Centers, Inc. v. Vines, a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) awarded an employee temporary total disability and psychiatric benefits following a workers’ compensation hearing. In response to the JCC’s ruling, the worker’s employer appealed the judge’s decision to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

According to the employer, the JCC committed error when he considered a particular physician’s opinion in the case because the doctor did not treat the worker, nor was the physician a neutral medical examiner or an expert medical advisor. The employer also asserted that the JCC utilized the wrong legal standard when determining that the worker suffered from a compensable injury, the judge improperly ordered the employer to pay certain medical expenses, and the JCC improperly awarded the employee disability benefit payments. In response, the worker filed a cross-appeal, claiming the JCC erred when he concluded that only one of the employee’s two psychiatric hospitalizations constituted compensable emergency medical care.

Southern District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Negligence Claims Following Cruise Ship Death

Published on: December 21, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Cordani v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., a man’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a cruise ship company and its medical staff after the man died of an illness he suffered while on board a passenger vessel. In a seven-count complaint, the estate sought damages from the company and the medical providers who treated the deceased man. In response to the lawsuit, the cruise company filed a motion to dismiss the estate’s negligence, negligent hiring and retention, and vicarious liability based on joint venture claims.

The Southern District of Florida first examined the legal standard related to a motion to dismiss that is filed with a federal court. The court stated a legal claim may not survive a motion to dismiss unless it alleges sufficient facts that, if taken as true and construed in favor of the non-moving party, support a plausible claim on its face.

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.