South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Workers’ Compensation Award On Legal Fees Issue

Published on: October 27, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Edmond v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., a rental car company worker sought workers’ compensation benefits payments after he was hurt at work in Florida. According to the employee, he was rendered temporarily disabled as a result of the workplace accident. Following a workers’ compensation hearing, a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) ordered the rental car business to pay the injured man more than $1,300 in temporary disability benefits and about $267.00 in legal fees. After that, the hurt worker filed an appeal with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

On appeal, the employee raised two constitutional claims and argued the JCC committed error by failing to issue an award for reasonable attorney’s fees for the work performed by his counsel in order to demonstrate the man’s entitlement to legal fees under Section 440.34 of the Florida Statutes. After filing his appeal, the court requested that the worker show cause why the court’s 2013 decision in another case was not controlling. Next, the employee admitted the case at issue controlled his two constitutional claims. The First District then turned to the man’s inadequate legal fees, or “fees on fees,” argument.

PIP Benefits Not Due When Insurer Lacked Notice in Florida Pedestrian Injury Case

Published on: October 23, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Gonzalez, a pedestrian was apparently struck by a car in Florida in May 2001. Following the incident, the injured woman was treated at a local emergency room. The woman’s health care insurer later paid the hospital $685 for the woman’s treatment. The hospital did not send a bill to the woman’s auto insurer.

More than six months later, the pedestrian’s attorney sent a letter of representation and a copy of the accident report to the woman’s liability insurer. The lawyer also requested certain insurance information from the company. Despite the correspondence, the woman’s counsel failed to include a hospital bill or request payment from the auto insurer. After that, the insurance company allegedly made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the injured pedestrian’s lawyer regarding her harm. The insurer ultimately closed the woman’s claim in August 2004.

Appeals Court Rules Summary Judgment Was Not Merited in Florida Negligence Case

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

In Peterson v. Flare Fittings, Inc., a man was apparently struck in the head by a 10-foot balloon that was tethered to a tree while he was attending a sporting event and trade show on a piece of property owned by a major theme park. According to the man, the balloon suddenly descended due to a gust of wind. As a result, the man reportedly became dazed and suffered pain.

After he was injured, the man reported the incident to a member of the event staff, who then brought the balloon down. A theme park manager allegedly told the man that the company would pay for any injuries he sustained due to being struck by the balloon. The manager also supposedly advised the man to seek medical treatment. Later that day, the injured man received x-rays and pain medication at a nearby hospital.

Florida Liability Insurer Held Jointly and Severally Liable for Costs in Car Accident Case

Published on: October 15, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In New Hampshire Indemnity Co. v. Gray, a Florida driver was sued following a catastrophic auto accident. Throughout the case, the man’s insurance company provided a defense to the motorist, pursuant to the terms of his liability insurance policy. At the close of the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff about $2.3 million in damages.

After a final judgment was entered against the driver, the injured plaintiff sought tax costs against the insurance company. The plaintiff also sought to join the insurer in the judgment. The company opposed the injured plaintiff’s request and argued it could not be held responsible for costs under the terms of the liability policy. Additionally, the insurer claimed it could not be joined in the judgment because the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements enumerated in Section 627.4136(4) of the Florida Statutes. After the plaintiff complied with the terms of the law, but before the insurance company received notice, the trial court held the company jointly and severally liable for over $135,000 in costs.

Appeals Court Elaborates on Definition of Compensable Injury Under Florida Workers’ Compensation Law

Published on: October 15, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Babametovic v. Scan Design Florida, Inc., a Florida man apparently injured his back while lifting a heavy box at work in October 2013. After complaining to his employer, the man was authorized to seek treatment at an urgent care facility. The medical facility diagnosed the worker with radiculitis and indicated the injury was work-related. The facility also referred the employee to another doctor for follow-up treatment.

About one month later, the employee was examined by the follow-up physician, who then diagnosed him with a lumbar muscle sprain and a preexisting degenerative disc disorder. Although the doctor also indicated the man’s injury was work-related, he sent the employer a letter stating the worker’s harm was only 40 percent related to his work injury. The physician stated the man’s back issues were 60 percent caused by his preexisting condition.

Middle District of Florida Holds Medical Malpractice Case Against Federally Supported Hospital Must Comply With Notice Provisions in the FTCA

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

In Rodriguez v. Heart of Florida Health Center, Inc., the estate of a deceased woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against a hospital and a doctor in Marion County, Florida. According to the complaint, the woman’s cancer diagnosis was seriously delayed as a result of the physician’s negligence. As a result, the estate sought damages for the decedent’s pain, suffering, disability, emotional anguish, medical expenses, and more. After the lawsuit was filed, the defendants removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship.

Next, the United States filed a motion to substitute the government as the defendant in the case. According to the U.S., the hospital and the doctor in her capacity as an employee were immune from suit because the facility enjoyed federal support. The U.S. also filed a motion to dismiss the medical malpractice lawsuit, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its motion to dismiss, the government argued the estate’s only remedy was a case brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The U.S. also asserted that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the estate failed to exhaust all administrative remedies as required by the statute.

Appeals Court Overturns Order Denying Florida Man’s Workers’ Compensation Claim for PTSD

Published on: October 7, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Sierra v. Metropolitan Protective Services, a Florida man was providing security guard services at work when he suffered minor wounds in a knife attack. After receiving emergency room treatment, the guard was referred to two doctors for follow-up treatment. One of the physicians was apparently a professional psychiatrist. The man’s employer accepted compensability for the incident, and he returned to work about one week later.

Next, the security guard’s employer granted the man’s request to transfer to a different work location. Over the course of the following months, however, the worker was apparently involved in two car accidents that were not work-related. Although the first accident was not considered serious, the guard sustained severe harm to his shoulder when his scooter was hit by a motor vehicle in the second incident. Eventually, the man underwent surgery on his shoulder. In addition, the guard did not return to work after the second traffic wreck.

Appellate Court Finds Florida Couple’s Products Liability Case is Time Barred

Published on: September 29, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., a Florida man was apparently seriously injured when a swimming pool filter unexpectedly exploded in 2012. Following the incident, the man and his wife filed a products liability lawsuit against the filter manufacturer, the distributor of the product, and the company that installed it 13 years earlier. According to the couple’s complaint, the defendants committed negligence and other torts against the man when they manufactured, sold, and installed the allegedly defective swimming pool filter. Because of this, the couple sought damages for the man’s resulting head injury.

In response to the couple’s lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming the 12-year statute of repose enumerated in Section 95.031 of the Florida Statutes barred the couple’s products liability case. Much like a statute of limitations, Florida’s statute of repose limits the time frame during which specific causes of action may be filed. If a lawsuit is not brought before the statute of repose expires, a plaintiff’s claim is typically barred forever. The trial court agreed with the defendants and entered judgment in their favor. The couple then filed an appeal with Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

Federal Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Clearwater Slip and Fall Case

Published on: September 25, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Chase v. Hess Retail Operations LLC, a woman was apparently injured when she slipped and fell at a Clearwater gas station. As a result of her harm, the woman filed a negligence lawsuit against the owner of the gas station in a Florida state court. The gas station then removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship because the woman denied that her damages did not exceed $75,000 in her response to certain requests for admissions.

Under federal law, the defendant in a lawsuit may remove a case to federal court for a number of reasons, including diversity jurisdiction. In order to establish diversity, the parties to a lawsuit must hail from different states, and the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000. Since a plaintiff normally selects his or her preferred venue when a lawsuit is filed, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that diversity jurisdiction exists. In general, a federal court must construe the facts of a case in which diversity jurisdiction is disputed in favor of remand back to state court.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Settlement Offer Was Not Vague or Ambiguous in Fatal Car Accident Lawsuit

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

In Wallen v. Tyson, a Florida man was tragically killed in a September 2010 car accident. Following the unfortunate event, the other driver involved in the collision filed a lawsuit in a Florida court against the deceased man’s estate. After that, the estate served a $12,000 settlement proposal on the driver, which contained a release of liability for all claims arising out of the motor vehicle wreck. The release specifically stated the driver maintained his right to pursue damages from any individual other than the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The offer also stated the terms were subject to negotiation. The allegedly injured driver apparently ignored the settlement proposal, and the case proceeded to trial.

Following a jury trial, the driver received an award of $13,000. The court then reduced the award by about $3,800 for payments that were previously made by the man’s insurer. Since the final judgment was more than 25 percent less that the estate’s settlement offer, the driver was rendered liable for the estate’s legal costs under Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes.