Articles Posted in Personal Injury

by

As our law firm has an expertise in workers’ compensation and personal injury cases, we are frequently asked to explain to our clients and other lawyers the differences between the two. Although both types of cases involve bodily injuries, they have little else in common.

With rare exception (see Florida Statute 440.11), the remedies available against employers for job related accidents are controlled by Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which is the body of law devoted to workers’ compensation cases. Personal injury cases are controlled by different statutes and case law. The differences are significant.

THE MAIN DIFFERENCES:

  • Negligence. As a legal concept, negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm. It is often difficult to prove negligence. Whereas proving negligence is not required in workers’ compensation cases, it is an essential element of every personal injury case except those involving strict liability.
  • Compensation for Pain and Suffering. Because workers’ compensation claimants are relieved of the heavy burden of having to prove negligence, the Florida Legislature, as a trade-off, does not allow them to be compensated for pain and suffering. In contrast, personal injury claimants can be compensated for pain and suffering. This difference is easily the most difficult concept for our workers’ compensation clients to understand. It is counter-intuitive. We spend a significant amount of time discussing this concept with all of our workers’ compensation clients.
  • Medical Benefits. Medical benefits are furnished to injured workers pursuant to the workers’ compensation system. It is a lousy system for injured workers (see this blog), with the biggest negative being that employers and their insurance carriers control the selection of all medical providers. By contrast, personal injury claimants do not have automatic medical benefits; claimants must fend for themselves in obtaining medical care. PIP (motor vehicle accidents), health insurance, and Medicare/Medicaid are the main sources sometimes available to cover the expense. It is more difficult for the uninsured. Arrangements can sometimes be made through the lawyer for the provision of medical care. In theory, the personal injury claimant is supposed to be compensated at the end of the case for past and future medical expenses.
  • Lost Wages. Like medical benefits, eligibility for workers’ compensation lost wages starts with the report of a work related accident. The benefit amount ranges from 66-2/3% to 80% of 80% of lost wages. Except for permanent total disability (PTD – 440.15(1)), a difficult standard to prove, the limit for the number of weeks of temporary disability benefits (i.e., prior to reaching maximum medical improvement) a claimant may receive is 104. Only a small percentage of claimants receive the full 104 weeks of benefits. The personal injury system for the payment of lost wages is significantly different. There is no built-in equivalent, like in workers’ compensation, for self-executing benefits to be paid. In some instances, PIP and private disability insurance fill the role, but often those benefits are not available or applicable. For the most part, it is not until the case is resolved that the personal injury claimant is compensated for lost wages past and future. The standards that apply for the determination and entitlement to lost wages also are different between workers’ compensation and personal injury cases.
  • Trial by Jury. Not available in workers’ compensation cases. Available upon request in personal injury cases.
  • Statute of Limitations. 2 years for workers’ compensation, 4 years for personal injury. (Be careful not to confuse the personal injury statute of limitations with the statutes of limitations applicable to wrongful death cases (2 years) and medical malpractice (2 years). Also, in personal injury cases against a governmental entity, although the statute of limitations is 4 years, a particular written statutory notice of claim must be given within 3 years. Finally, and of great importance, sometimes there are ways of extending a statute of limitations beyond the black-letter numbers given above. Accordingly, it is important to discuss these issues with an attorney before concluding that it is too late to pursue any legal claim based on a statute of limitations.)
  • Attorney Representation. Available in both types of case. We handle both type of cases on a contingent basis (no fees and costs payable by the client until we win the case), but, by law, the fee formulas are significantly different.

There are numerous other differences between workers’ compensation and personal injury cases, but these are the main ones. Needless to say, an experienced legal professional should be consulted to discuss all of these issues.
Continue reading

by

I have blogged previously on various topics pertaining to premises liability law (open & obvious doctrine; slip & fall; dog bites; and natural conditions. One topic about which I have not written is negligent security.

Negligent security cases involve harm to residents, guests, patrons and the like through the conduct of a bad actor such as a rapist or a mugger.

One of my previous blogs addresses the general principles of Florida law regarding landowner liability for accidents or events that occur on their property. For the most part, every commercial property owner owes some duty of care to those who enter their property, with the level of care being defined by a particular individual’s status on the property (e.g., invitee, invited licensee, uninvited licensee, trespasser). These general principles apply to negligent security cases.

Sadly, rapes and assaults at commercial locations like malls and apartment complexes are events all too common in Florida. Of course, some of these crimes cannot be prevented. However, many could be deterred through reasonable security measures such as improved lighting, beefed up security, video cameras, and eliminating secluded areas.
Continue reading

by

I am a member of the Florida Justice Association (FJA), a Tallahassee-based organization dedicated to strengthening and upholding Florida’s civil justice system and protecting the rights of Florida’s citizens and consumers. Within the organization is an Internet discussion group, of which I have been a member for more than ten years, consisting of a sub-group of lawyers who only represent Plaintiffs/Claimants. In other words, no defense attorneys are allowed access to this discussion group. The group discusses legal issues concerning the rights of individuals within the context of the civil justice system. It is an invaluable resource.

Many of my blogs discuss the dangers facing Florida’s civil justice system. Among the specific topics discussed regarding the larger issue deal with what is referred to in Florida as the crashworthiness or enhanced injury doctrine. (Blogs 1, 2, and 3.) I have warned that this important consumer safety law was in danger of being eliminated by Rick Scott and Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature. Well, in just day two of the Rick Scott administration, the doctrine is under assault and, given the Republican numbers, likely to be killed.

Given the importance of the doctrine to the safety and well-being of people in Florida, this assault on the doctrine is a hot topic of discussion on the FJA’s Internet discussion board. I found one post particularly enlightening and have decided to post it here (slightly edited). The author is Florida Attorney Rich Newsome.

*****************************************
This coming Tuesday afternoon, the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Anitere Flores, will take up an anti-consumer bill involving automobile safety. This bill is being spearheaded by Ford Motor Company and if passed, will have huge consequences for consumers who are maimed and killed by defective cars. (Blogger’s note: In 2009, Ms. Flores introduced and shepherded workers’ compensation legislation that has resulted in the drastic curtailment of the ability of injured workers to obtain benefits. The legislation is in the process of being appealed as unconstitutional to the Florida Supreme Court.)
Continue reading

by

Florida police departments are not immune from employing a few bad apples. Occasionally, we learn of a law enforcement officer taking advantage of a vulnerable woman while in uniform during working hours. When such a vile event occurs, the legal question arises as to whether or not the offending officer’s agency must bear civil (as opposed to criminal) responsibility for the officer’s actions. The obvious reaction would seem to be, Yes, of course!!! Unfortunately, the reality is not so simple.

Florida employers may be held liable for the intentional actions of their employees under two legal principles: (1) Negligent hiring. Where the employer knew or should have known prior to hiring that the potential employee was of unfit character, but hired anyway; and (2) Negligent retention. When the employer knew or should have known after hire of an employee’s unfit character, but fails to terminate or modify the employment responsibilities.

However, merely establishing one or both of these principles is not enough. The victim must also show that (1) the unfit character of which the employer knew or should have known had some reasonable relationship to the bad acts committed; and (2) the bad acts were initiated in the course and scope of employment and to serve the interests of the employer.

One of the leading cases in Florida regarding this topic is Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 583 So.2d 744 (Fla. App. 1 Dist., 1991). Tallahassee Furniture’s employee was hired to deliver furniture to customers’ homes. More than one month after making a delivery, he returned to a female customer’s home and raped her. The young victim sued the employer, Tallahassee Furniture, for negligent hiring and retention.
Continue reading

by

worker.jpgThe question often arises in Florida as to whether undocumented workers can be compensated for lost wages (past and future) in personal injury and workers’ compensation cases. With few exceptions, the answer appears to be No.

Although the damages available in workers’ compensation and personal injury cases may differ, both offer elements of awards for lost wages. Proving entitlement requires showing that the lost wages are related to the injuries. However, the employer (wc) and defendant (pi) may nullify the proof by establishing that the claimant is prohibited from working in the United States due to immigration issues. In other words, an immigrant who is not authorized to work in the United States, cannot be compensated under Florida law for lost income resulting from an accident.

The two primary exceptions in workers’ compensation cases are (1) the employee is totally, as opposed to partially, unable to work because of his injuries, and (2) the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s status as an unauthorized alien prior to the disabling accident. (The law of Florida does not impose on an employer the burden of verifying forged or borrowed green cards – Florida Statute 448.09 – nor is there any such federal requirement.)
Continue reading

by

Florida Statute 366.15 addresses the issue of medical dependence on electric-powered equipment and public utility companies. Unfortunately, the statute appears to be a toothless tiger.

Many Floridians who live in private residences are dependent on electric-powered equipment that must be operated continuously to avoid the loss of life or immediate hospitalization. Not infrequently, the money to pay for the electric service to power the life support equipment is not always readily available.

One might conclude from reading the statute that public utility companies must overcome numerous procedural hurdles in order to disconnect service to individuals in need of “medically essential” electric-powered equipment. For example, the statute speaks in terms of prior notice to the customer and providing information regarding funding sources to pay electric bills. However, the last paragraph of the statute, which provides as follows, sends a somewhat different message: (11) Nothing in this act shall form the basis for any cause of action against a public utility. Failure to comply with any obligation created by this act does not constitute evidence of negligence on the part of the public utility.
Continue reading

by

In the November, 2010 election, Republicans gained additional seats in the Florida House and Senate, making their previous solid majorities even stronger. Combined with the election of pro-big business Republican Governor Rick Scott, individuals should expect to see their rights at seeking redress from large corporations dramatically curtailed.

One of the first orders of business for the Republican legislature will be to eliminate the “enhanced injury” doctrine. As I discussed in a previous blog, the enhanced injury doctrine is a principle of law that allows civil courts to hold corporations accountable for damages caused by their negligence that exceed the damages due to the initial fault. A clear and simple example of the principle in application comes from the seminal case on the doctrine, D’Amario v. Ford Motor Company, 806 So.2d 424 (Fla. 2001). D’Amario involved a minor passenger in a vehicle that struck a tree. Following the impact, a fire began that ended in an explosion, causing the minor to lose three limbs and suffer burns to much of his body. The minor and his mother sued Ford alleging that a defective relay switch in the automobile caused the fire. They alleged that but for the defective switch, the fire would not have started and the minor’s injuries would have been limited to those from impacting the tree. Consistent with the enhanced injury doctrine, they limited their claim for damages to those caused by the fire. The case went to trial and was ultimately appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held Ford Motor Company responsible for the enhanced injuries, thus establishing the doctrine.
Continue reading

by

It is unlawful for any person whose driver’s license has been suspended to operate a vehicle upon the streets and highways of Florida. Florida Statute 322.34. In addition, any vehicle owner who knowingly allows a person with a suspended license to operate his/her vehicle in Florida commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. 322.36. (Since Florida Statute 322.38, which addresses the minimum duty owed by rental agencies, uses the word “person” in reference to an owner who rents his/her vehicle, the use of the word “person” in 322.36 makes its provisions applicable to rental agencies.)

We are currently involved in litigation against Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida, LLC (Miami-Dade County case number 08-80070 CA 23), for catastrophic injuries caused by the renter of one of its vehicles in a highway roll-over accident. When Enterprise allowed the renter to drive its vehicle off its lot, his Florida license was under suspension for moving violations.

Enterprise’s defense is that it did not know or have a duty to determine if the renter’s license was suspended. Interestingly, an Enterprise representative testified in deposition that, had the company known [of the suspension], it would have been negligence on its part to entrust its vehicle to the renter. We have asserted that Enterprise had a duty to limit the risk to our client, which included making an effort to determine, at a minimum, the status of its renter’s Florida license. In a Motion for Summary Judgment, Enterprise asked the court to decide the issue. The court denied Enterprise’s motion, allowing us to proceed with our case.

Since 1999, Florida driver license status records have been searchable through the Internet by DL number or name/date-of-birth/sex, making status information available in a matter of seconds. Enterprise did not perform this simple and fast search in our case. Had it done so, it would have learned of the suspended license, which was registered in the database since 2006, some two years before our accident. (By the way, Enterprise’s customer, who did not have a valid credit card, paid cash to rent the vehicle.)

Was this a case of willful ignorance to avoid the chance of turning away a paying customer?

For many years, numerous car rental companies had been using databases to screen driving records of potential renters. See articles #1 and #2. (It is estimated that 6-10% of potential renters are denied by the screening process. The reasons for the denials vary from suspended licenses to poor driving records.) However, among the major car rental companies, Enterprise was an exception to that policy.

Sadly, the pack may soon, if not already, be following Enterprise’s lead.
Continue reading

by

With the exception of independent contractors working or performing services in the construction industry (Florida Statute 440.02(15)(c)3), individuals working as independent contractors are not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits from the companies for whom they are performing services. The reason why is because they are not considered employees of those companies. F.S. 440.02(15)(d)1.

These statements should not be misconstrued as meaning that employees of independent contractors are not entitled to workers’ compensation. Such employees are entitled to workers’ compensation from their own employers. However, in many instances, the individuals who work as independent contractors are self-employed or work for others who do not have workers’ compensation insurance.

Many companies seek to limit their workers’ compensation insurance premiums and claims by classifying individuals as independent contractors when they are not. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some companies try to avoid being sued for negligence by classifying independent contractors as employees. See Florida Statute 440.11 Exclusiveness of Liability.

The issue has been heavily litigated in Florida. To provide some guidance on the issue, the Florida Legislature created a checklist of factors to consider in making the determination. See 440.02(15)(d). The factors include:

  • Whether or not the individual maintained a separate business, with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment and materials;
  • Whether or not the individual holds or has applied for a federal identification number;
  • Whether or not the individual performs work for any entity in addition to the person for whom he or she was performing work at the time of the accident;
  • Whether or not the individual incurs the expenses of the work performed;
  • Whether or not the individual may realize a profit or a loss in connection with the work;
  • The success or failure of the individual’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures

Continue reading

by

In 1920, the Florida Supreme Court, in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920), applied the dangerous-instrumentality doctrine to automobiles. The significance of the holding is that owners of automobiles are responsible for personal injuries caused through the negligence of those who drive their vehicles. The legal theory that holds the owner accountable is known as vicarious liability. The Supreme Court reasoned:

This form of vicarious liability is not based on respondent superior or an agency conception, but on the practical fact that the owner of an instrumentality which [has] the capability of causing death or destruction should in justice answer for misuse of this instrumentality by anyone operating it with his knowledge and consent.

(See this blog for a major exception to the danagerous-instrumentality doctrine.)

In 1984, the Florida Supreme Court expanded the dangerous-instrumentality doctrine to include golf carts, even those being used on the golf course. Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 Fla. 1984). However, as the evolution of common law doctrine moves at a glacial pace, it has not yet been determined if ATVs are dangerous-instrumentalities for purposes of vicarious liability. The question is likely to be answered soon.
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