Articles Posted in Personal Injury

by

ankle x-ray - hardware.jpgThe most important job of every personal injury lawyer is to maximize the amount of his or her client’s monetary recovery. The damage elements of every personal injury case are “pain & suffering” and economic damages (which includes lost wages, loss of earning capacity, out-of-pocket expenses, and past and future medical expenses). The nature and extent of the injuries bear on every element of damages. Accordingly, effectively demonstrating the nature and extent of the injuries is a critical component in every personal injury case. Various methods are available.

Although medical illustrations, both generic and case-specific, are the traditional way of demonstrating injuries, they continue to serve a convincing role in presenting evidence in today’s high tech world. Generic illustrations are less costly and can be used in other cases, but may have less impact than case-specific demonstrations. For spine injuries, showing a summary of pain management injections is effective. The exhibit will visually show every date injections were administered, along with the location, size, and shape of each needle and syringe entering the spine. To have this chart made, the medical illustrator must be provided with the medical records containing the injections information or a summary detailing the information.
Continue reading

by

monopoly card.jpgOne would hope and expect in a society purporting to be civilized, that the negligence of any person or company could not be waived before it happened. Astonishingly, Florida law allows just that: pre-accident releases/waivers barring actions based on the subsequent negligence of the released party.

In other words, Florida law sanctions the equivalent of the Monopoly game, “Get out of Jail Free” pass to those whose wrongoing may injure or kill others.

Cognizant of the tremendous consquences of this law – for example, no hope of compensation for a catastrophically injured person – Florida courts have at least decided that contracts which purport to release or indemnify a party for its own negligence are looked upon with disfavor and will not be enforced unless the instrument clearly and specifically provides for a limitation or elimination of liability for such acts. University Plaza Shopping Center v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507, 511 (Fla. 1973). Moreover, it may be settled law that the word “negligence” must appear in the release. See, Bender v. Caregivers of America, Inc., 42 So.3d 893 (Fla 4th DCA 2010); Travent, Ltd. v. Schecter, 718 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Witt v. Dolphin Research Ctr., Inc., 692 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Rosenberg v. Cape Coral Plumbing Inc., 920 So. 2d 61, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); and Levine v. A. Madley Corp., 516 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Continue reading

by

chairs.jpgAccidents caused by broken chairs are not uncommon. In some cases, the injuries can be severe (e.g., broken bones; herniated intervertebral discs). Through normal wear and tear, defects can develop that create conditions for imminent accidents. To avoid these dangerous situations, it is necessary to be reasonably observant and even pro-active with regard to determining the condition of chairs. This is especially so for commercial enterprises catering to the public.

In Fontana v. Wilson World Maingate, 717 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), Fontana, while a guest of the defendant/appellee’s hotel, sat in a chair which was defective causing it to collapse and injure her. The defendant did not deny that the chair was defective. However, at trial it argued that the case should be dismissed because there was no evidence that it knew or reasonably should have known of the defect. The trial judge agreed, leading to a directed verdict in favor of the defendant.
Continue reading

by

law books.jpgMcCall vs. Alabama Bruno’s, Inc., 647 So.2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994): Florida follows the general rule that the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the contractor’s negligence because the employer has no control over the manner in which the work is done, except when one of three exceptions apply. Those exceptions involve:

  1. Negligence in selecting, instructing or supervising the contractor;
  2. Non-delegable duties arising out of some relation toward the public or the particular plaintiff;
  3. Work which is specially, peculiarly, or “inherently” dangerous.

Peculiar does not mean that the risk must be one which is abnormal to the type of work done, or that it must be an abnormally great risk, but instead refers to a special recognizable danger arising out of the work itself. In order for the vicarious liability rules to apply, it is not essential that the work which the contractor is employed to do be in itself an extra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activity, or that it involve a very high degree of risk to those in the vicinity. It is sufficient that it is likely to involve a peculiar risk of physical harm unless special precautions are taken, even though the risk is not abnormally great. A “peculiar risk” differs from common risks to which persons in general are commonly subjected by the ordinary forms of negligence which are usual in the community. It must involve some special hazard resulting from the nature of the work done, which calls for special precautions. Restatement (2d) Torts Sect. 416. Rules imposing vicarious liability on employers for the acts of independent contractors arise “in situations where, for reasons of policy, the employer is not permitted to shift the responsibility for the proper conduct of the work to the contractor” and it is commonly stated that “the employer is under a duty which he is not free to delegate to the contractor.” Nondelegable duties have been found under Florida law to arise out of “inherently dangerous activity,” activity involving “inherently dangerous elements,” or out of the creation of an “inherently dangerous condition.”

Webb vs. Priest, 413 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982): The general rule in Florida is that an owner is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor except when (a) the activity is inherently dangerous (see Ferguson vs. Westinghouse, 408 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981)); (b) the owner/employer had contractually assumed responsibility (Levitz vs. Continental Equities, 411 So.2d 221 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982)); (c) there is legally imposed responsibility (Concord Florida vs. Lewin, 341 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977)); (d) the owner/employer knew or had reason to know that the independent contractor would not perform in a satisfactory manner (Williams vs. Wometco Enterprises, 287 So.2d 353 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974)); (e) where the independent contractor had apparent authority to act on behalf of the owner/employer (Thomkin Corp. vs. Miller, 156 Fla. 388, 24 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1945).
Continue reading

by

hospital.jpgOnce a hospital is paid by Medicare, it is barred from balance-billing the patient except for a small co-payment. Because Medicare pays less than “reasonable value” for services charged by Florida hospitals, where a hospital believes that the patient is likely to receive a monetary recovery in a personal injury case, it may refuse to bill Medicare. Hospitals do this hoping to receive more from personal injury cases than from Medicare.

Unfortunately, this conduct is legal. There appear to be no rules, statutes or case law barring this conduct.

The law is less clear with regard to Medicaid. Some believe that Medicaid must be billed, while others do not. As with Medicare, hospitals are not allowed to balance-bill after being paid by Medicaid.

Where Medicare or Medicaid pay and a personal injury recovery follows, both will be reimbursed from the recovery. Accordingly, neither (namely, taxpayers) loses out.

Hence, where hospitals refuse to bill Medicare, the consumer/patient ends up paying more.
Continue reading

by

mri.jpgFlorida Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1.360(a)(1)(A) allows the defendant in a personal injury case to have a qualified expert of its own choosing perform a medical examination on the plaintiff with regard to the injury or injuries in controversy. This type of examination has come to be referred to as a “compulsory medical examination,” or “CME.”

The notice of the examination is served by the defendant on the plaintiff’s attorney. The Rule provides that the request “shall specify a reasonable time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination….” The reason for the specificity requirement is to give the plaintiff the opportunity to impose objections to the request if necessary.

The question often arises as to whether or not the CME doctor is allowed to perform invasive testing such as X-rays. The answer is a conditional Yes.

In Schagrin v. Nacht, 683 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), paragraph 4 of the defendant’s request read as follows:

The scope of the examination is of a urological nature concerning conditions of the Plaintiff relating to the accident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. The exam shall include any such tests that the doctor feels are necessary for a complete and thorough examination of the Plaintiff.

Continue reading

by

Florida lawyers who represent individuals injured in accidents must be aware that some of the proceeds recovered in a case may have to be reimbursed to entities who have paid for accident-related medical care. If benefits were paid through an individual health insurance plan, whether and to what extent the carrier has a right of subrogation is a matter of contract (the insurance policy) and state law, Florida Statute 768.76. With regard to group policies provided in connection with employment, it was long believed that subrogation rights were exclusively a matter of contract, the Plan Summary, and federal law, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). It was felt that Florida Statute 768.76 played no role in determining group insurance subrogation rights.

Coleman v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. So.3d , 35 FLW D2718 (Fla. 1st. DCA 12-8-2010) may have changed the landscape.

After successfully settling a personal injury action in federal court, Coleman (the plaintiff and a member of a group plan) filed a complaint in state court requesting a declaratory judgment prohibiting the insurer from seeking subrogation against the settlement proceeds. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the insurer had not met the pre-subrogation requirements of Florida’s Collateral Source Statute Section 768.76(7). Therefore, according to the plaintiff, Blue Cross Blue Shield had waived its right to subrogation.
Continue reading

by

scales of justice.jpgFlorida employers who maintain workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, generally are immune from being sued civilly for damages by employees injured in the course and scope of their employment. See Florida Statute 440.11. (For an explanation of the differences between workers’ compensation cases and civil cases, see these blogs: The Differences Between Florida Workers’ Compensation and Personal Injury Cases; Legal Distinctions Between Florida’s Workers’ Compensation System and Wrongful Death Act for Loss of Life.)

For some employers, the immunity afforded by Florida law is not enough to satisfy their quest to deny benefits altogether to those who have been seriously injured in accidents. Not only will the employer try to deny that the accident happened in the course and scope of employment, but when a civil suit is brought after workers’ compensation benefits have been denied, the employer asserts the defense of workers’ compensation immunity in the civil suit. What the employer is doing is denying on the one hand that the injured person is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, while claiming on the other hand in the civil case that the plaintiff’s only available remedy is through the workers’ compensation system.

Contradictory. Hypocritical. Thankfully, it doesn’t work in Florida.

In Rush v. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc. d/b/a AT&T Florida, 18 FLWCLB 22 (N.D. Fla. 2011), this tactic was attempted by the employer. In a well-reasoned and sensible decision, the United States District Court shot it down.

Ms. Rush first filed a workers’ compensation Petition alleging “exposure to toxic mold, MRSA [methicillin-resistant staphyloccus aureus], and other complications related to `sick building.'” BellSouth responded to the Petition by asserting that “the exposure did not occur in the course and scope of her employment.” Rather than fight this defense through the workers’ compensation system, Ms. Rush dismissed the Petition and filed a negligence action in which she alleged “that BellSouth was negligent in its cleaning, maintenance, and operation of the Garden Street workplace; and that this negligence caused Rush to suffer injury and resulting damages.”
Continue reading

by

hard rock cafe.jpgThe Seminole Tribe of Florida is a sovereign nation within a nation. Under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the Tribe is sovereignly immune unless (1) the tribal council waives its immunity, or (2) Congress abrogates the Tribe’s immunity. (Pursuant to the Seminole Tribe of Florida and State of Florida Gaming Compact of 2007, a small exception applies to patrons who claim “to have been injured in the area of the Facility where Covered Games are played.” Patrons are defined as those people who are on the premises of a facility or who have entered the Tribe’s lands for the purpose of playing authorized covered games.

Sovereign immunity developed as a recognition of Indian tribes as separate and distinct governments – see Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831) – and to protect tribes’ scarce financial resources.

The Seminole Tribe is one of the most powerful and lucrative corporations in Florida. In 2006, it purchased Hard Rock International for $965 million, and in 2010, spent $560,000 on lobbying. It is involved in business ventures throughout the state. Its dealings extend far beyond the gaming (gambling) business.
Continue reading

by

nursing home abuse.jpgKudos to The Miami Herald for exposing the widespread abuse and neglect of residents within Florida’s nearly 2900 nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, and AHCA’s failure to perform its mandate to regulate and punish the wrongdoers. NEGLECTED TO DEATH Part I; Part II; Part III.

It is a must read and will make your blood boil… unless, of course, you are Governor Rick Scott or one of his merry band of radical right-wing Republican legislators who are pushing to create laws designed to weaken rather than strengthen the rights of private citizens to hold bad facilites accountable.

These are some of The Herald’s findings:

  • 70 People died from abuse or neglect since 2002.
  • 1,732 Homes were caught using illegal restraints like ropes, locking residents in closets, and tranquilizing them since 2002.
  • Only 26 facilities closed down by AHCA since 2002. State regulators could have shut down 70 homes in the past two years for a host of severe violations – including abuse and neglect by caretakes – but in the end, closed just seven.
  • 13,250 Police and rescue calls to a small enclave of ALFs in Broward County since 2005 – essentially one every four hours.
  • While the number of new homes has exploded across the state – 550 in the past five years – the state has dropped critical inspections by 33 percent, allowing some of the worst facilities to stay open.
  • Though the state has the power to impose fines on homes that break the law, the penalties are routinely decreased, delayed or dropped altogether. Consider: In 2009 AHCA could have imposed more than $6 million in fines, but took in just $650,000.

Now for what Rick Scott and his cohorts are seeking to enact:
House Bill 661 and Senate Bill 1396 would cap non-economic damages at $250,000 in wrongful death cases involving nursing homes for the first time. It would also make it more difficult to obtain punitive damages, and prohibit naming an out-of-town owner or investor of a nursing home in a lawsuit.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
9999 NE 2nd Ave, #304
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com
Palm Beach Gardens
2401 PGA Blvd #140
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design