South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

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.

Florida Appeals Court Says Summary Judgment Was Not Proper in Car Accident Dispute

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

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal has reversed and remanded a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in an insurance dispute. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Manzo-Pianelli, a woman who was operating an insured motor vehicle with permission was involved in a car accident with another automobile. At the time of the collision, the owner of the vehicle carried a liability policy of $100,000 as well as a $1 million umbrella policy with another company. After the traffic wreck, the owner’s auto insurance company provided the policy limits to a woman who was seriously hurt in the collision. In exchange for the payment, the woman agreed to issue a partial release against the owner of the automobile that apparently struck her. The injured woman next sought coverage under the vehicle owner’s umbrella policy. In response, the insurer refused her claim.

About two years later, the woman filed a lawsuit seeking uninsured motorist coverage from her own motor vehicle insurer. After that, the woman’s liability insurer filed a third-party case seeking to clarify “priority of coverage” against the woman, the company that issued the owner of the vehicle’s umbrella policy, and the driver who allegedly caused the accident. Nearly three years later, the injured woman amended her complaint to include the purportedly negligent driver who caused her injuries. Throughout the court proceedings, the owner of the vehicle was never named as a defendant by any party.

Southern District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Negligence Lawsuit Filed Against Cruise Ship Company

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

The Southern District of Florida has refused to dismiss a slip-and-fall case that was filed against a cruise ship company. In Young v. Carnival Corp., a woman filed a negligence lawsuit against the cruise line she traveled with in a Florida federal court. According to her complaint, the woman was injured when she slipped and fell on an unspecified substance while aboard a cruise ship. She also claimed that the cruise line breached its duty to protect her from being injured, and the company’s breach proximately caused her actual harm. In response to the woman’s lawsuit, the cruise company filed a motion to dismiss the woman’s case.

According to the cruise ship operator, the woman failed to plead the elements necessary to establish the company was negligent. In a federal lawsuit, a party’s case may be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In considering such a motion, a court is normally required to accept all of the facts alleged in the pleadings as true. After considering the company’s motion, the federal court said the woman successfully pleaded her negligence case.

Florida Supreme Court Answers Two Certified Questions Over Uninsured Motorist Benefits

Published on: November 6, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. v. Harrington, a woman was seriously hurt in a one-car accident while riding as a passenger in her father’s car. The man driving the automobile was not related to the woman, but he was driving the vehicle with her father’s permission. At the time of the single-car crash, the woman and both of her parents carried liability and non-stacked uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage on three vehicles, including the one involved in the accident. The driver also carried liability insurance with a different automobile insurance company.

Following the single-vehicle collision, the driver’s liability insurer paid the woman the policy limits of $50,000 for her harm. In addition, the woman’s own insurance company paid her the $100,000 liability limit under the terms of the policy. Since the woman incurred medical expenses that exceeded this amount, she also sought to recover UM benefits from her insurer. The company stated the vehicle was not uninsured under the terms of the auto insurance policy and denied her claim. According to the company, the policy excluded a family car or truck from the definition of an uninsured or underinsured vehicle.

Tampa Federal Court Allows Untimely Expert Testimony in Bad Faith Insurance Case

Published on: November 3, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Hayas v. GEICO General Insurance Co., a man negligently caused a motor vehicle collision that tragically killed another individual. When the traffic wreck occurred, the man carried liability insurance that was limited to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. Following the fatal crash, the decedent’s estate filed a complaint against the negligent driver and his automobile insurance company. Although a settlement opportunity apparently arose, the insurer allegedly declined to settle the case. Following a jury trial, the decedent’s estate secured a $1.6 million judgment against the driver.

After the judgment was rendered, the driver instituted a bad faith insurance case against his liability insurance company in the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. In support of his case, the negligent driver filed a supplemental expert disclosure with the federal court. The insurance company responded by filing a motion to strike and asked the court to exclude the man’s proposed expert witness and prohibit the witness from offering any testimony in the case.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Medical Malpractice Law Does Not Apply Where Organs Were Cremated Following Autopsy

Published on: October 27, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. v. Liles, a 49-year-old Florida woman died after receiving treatment for shortness of breath in an emergency room at a hospital. Following the woman’s death, her daughter signed a form providing the hospital with permission to perform an autopsy. The form stated the institution was authorized to retain certain internal organs for further study. After the woman’s daughter sought a second autopsy, she learned that her mother’s internal organs were incinerated by the hospital.

The decedent’s daughter filed a lawsuit against the hospital, the doctor who performed the autopsy, and the pathology company that disposed of the woman’s organs without the daughter’s express consent. In her complaint, the daughter accused the three of conspiracy and committing the tort of outrage. The hospital responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case because the decedent’s daughter failed to comply with the medical malpractice requirements set forth in Chapter 766 of the Florida Statutes. The court denied the hospital’s motion and allowed the daughter to amend her complaint to also seek punitive damages.

Tampa Federal Court Remands Medical Device Products Liability Case Back to Sarasota County

Published on: October 22, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Middle District of Florida in Tampa has remanded a products liability case back to state court. In Wier v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a man was allegedly hurt by a medical device that was surgically implanted in his hip. As a result, he filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the device and the distributor in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in Sarasota County. In the man’s case, he asserted the two companies were negligent, failed to warn him, committed breach of an implied warranty, and should be held strictly liable for his harm. He also claimed that the medical device manufacturer was guilty of breach of express warranty.

Although the device manufacturer hailed from a different state, the defendant distributor was a Florida citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a lawsuit that was filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the parties are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In general, any doubts regarding whether federal jurisdiction is proper should be decided in favor of a lawsuit proceeding in state court. Despite this, the manufacturer successfully removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship.

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.

Appeals Court Overturns $5.9 Million Florida Wrongful Death Verdict Against Tobacco Company

Published on: October 15, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a Florida woman filed a wrongful death case in the Middle District of Florida against a tobacco company over her husband’s 1996 lung cancer death. In her complaint, the woman sought both compensatory and punitive damages from the company that manufactured the cigarettes her spouse smoked throughout their marriage. According to the woman, his nicotine addiction caused her husband’s death. Evidence provided to the court suggested that the decedent was also addicted to alcohol.

The man’s cancer was reportedly discovered when he was admitted to a local hospital “complaining of confusion, disorientation, and impairment of equilibrium.” At the time, the man’s treating physicians diagnosed him with lung cancer that spread to his brain. The man’s death certificate listed “lung cancer” as his cause of death, but the man’s family apparently refused a biopsy to confirm his diagnosis.

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.