Florida Injury Attorney Blawg

July 27, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida Workers’ Compensation — Compensability of Accidents During Lunch Break

Our client, a construction site supervisor, was injured off-premises at the end of his lunch break. The beginning and end of lunch were signaled by a loud horn. He and his brother traveled by car to a nearby 7-11 to purchase lunch items. They returned to the area near the worksite to eat lunch in the parked car. When the return-to-work horn sounded, our client went to the trunk of his car to retrieve his hard hat and safety harness. As he was standing there, the car behind him was struck from behind by another vehicle and pushed into him, causing him to be crushed between that vehicle and his own. He sustained significant injuries requiring a one-week stay in Ryder Trauma Center in Miami.

Initially, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier balked at accepting compensability of the injury. Its position was that since the accident happened offsite during a lunch break, it did not arise out of and in the course and scope of our client’s employment. After studying the case law and gathering more facts, the carrier reversed course.

July 26, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Medical Expenses Incurred in Diagnosing the Nature and Cause of Non-Compensable Injuries Can be the Responsibility of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Carriers

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

We represent a woman who fell at work. The employer sent her to a clinic the same day for treatment. However, because of miscommunications between the employer and the clinic, she never got in to see a doctor despite waiting more than two hours. While in the waiting room, our client began experiencing stroke-like symptoms. She phoned her daughter to take her to the hospital. She was admitted to the hospital and underwent a series of tests mostly aimed at the stroke-like symptoms. She was discharged 24 hours after being admitted. The hospital bill was close to $100,000.

Our client injured her back and feet in the fall. She did not strike her head. The workers’ compensation insurance carrier has accepted responsibility for the orthopedic injuries. However, it is not considering paying the hospital bill. It may have to pay the bill.

It is well established in the case law that diagnostic testing is always compensable if the purpose is to find out the cause of the injured worker’s symptoms. See Arnau v. Winn Dixie Stores, 105 So.3d 669, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) citing Nealy v. City of W. Palm Beach, 491 So.2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“Whenever the purpose of the diagnostic test is to determine the cause of a claimant’s symptoms, which symptoms may be related to a compensable accident, the cost of the diagnostic test is compensable.”); see also Superior Concrete Constr. v. Olsen, 616 So.2d 183, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Perry v. Ridgecrest Int’l, 548 So.2d 826, 827-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). This is true even if the tests prove the symptoms are unrelated to the compensable injury. Nealy, 491 So.2d at 586.

The foundation for these principles is found in Florida statute 440.13. Under paragraph 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2023), employers are required to furnish “such medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for such period as the nature of the injury or process of recovery may require.” Medically necessary treatment includes “any medical service or medical supply which is used to identify or treat an illness or injury.” § 440.13(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (2023).

June 29, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Employer/Carrier’s Responsibility to Pay for Unrelated Medical Care

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Following compensable work-related accidents, employers and their insurance carriers (commonly collectively referred to as “E/C”), are supposed to furnish injured workers with the medical care prescribed in Florida Statute section 440.13.(2)(a). The key language of the statute reads as follows:

Subject to the limitations specified elsewhere in this chapter, the employer shall furnish to the employee such medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require….

Interestingly, this provision has been interpreted to include medical treatment for unrelated conditions if such treatment will aid or improve recovery of the work injury. The principle has been recognized since 1966.

In Jordan v. Fla. Industrial Commission, 183 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1966), the Florida Supreme Court reversed the rulings of two lower tribunals which denied treatment of a pre-existing deformity, and compensation for healing time during and following same. The injured worker in the case had sustained a leg injury in a prior accident which healed at an abnormal angle shortening his leg by two and one-fourth inches, giving him a limp, curvature of the spine and abnormal stress on the leg muscles, tendons, etc. Four years later he suffered a job-connected accident resulting in a back injury. Medical testimony demonstrated that were it not for the abnormal stress on his back caused by the earlier deformity, claimant’s back would have healed from the compensable injury in four to eight weeks, and that the only effective treatment for the compensable back injury was to correct the leg length discrepancy. The Judge of Compensation Claims declined to require that the employer provide treatment or appliances to correct the deformity. The Full Industrial Commission affirmed the JCC. (It should be noted that the Industrial Commission no longer exists to review workers’ compensation trial judge rulings. That responsibility now lies with the First District Court of Appeal.) The Supreme Court reversed both tribunals and ordered E/C to furnish the medical treatment.

June 15, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Protecting Privacy and Privilege Rights in Non-Party Requests for Documents

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

In just about every personal injury and workers’ compensation case, the defense will seek the production of records from non-parties to the suit. The typical non-party targets are medical providers and insurance companies. In most instances, the records sought were not generated in connection with the subject case. The defense is looking for records of preexisting medical conditions and prior legal claims.

Florida’s discovery rules are liberal. FRCP 1.280(b) provides as follows:

(b) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery isas follows:
(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Albeit broad, the rules are not boundless. In Russell v. Stardust Cruisers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1997), a wrongful death case, petitioner objected to defendant’s request for decedent’s psychiatric and psychological records, stating that the medical records were confidential and that the request was overbroad. The DCA decided that the records might be relevant to the issue of damages but disagreed with the court’s order allowing “carte blanche investigation of decedent’s entire mental health history.” Russell at 745. The court explained that “Even though the rules of civil procedure allow for broad discovery, the discovery must be confined to matters admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in the case.” Russell at 745, citing East Colonial Refuse Service, Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The trial court order allowing carte blanche discovery was quashed and the matter was remanded for an in camera review of the records.

June 1, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Fundamentals Always Matter — Proximate Cause

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

In every negligence action for injuries or wrongful death the plaintiff must establish (1) a duty owed by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s breach of the duty; and (3) and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.

In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury. See Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746, 190 So. 26 (1939); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1979); Bryant v. Jax Liquors, 352 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1978). Prosser explored this standard of proof as follows:

On the issue of the fact of causation, as on other issues essential to his cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff, in general, has the burden of proof. He must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.

The north star of the law of causation is the landmark supreme court decision in Gooding v. University Hospital Building, Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1020 (Fla. 1984). The Florida Supreme Court described the case as follows:

Emily Gooding, personal representative of Mr. Gooding’s estate, brought a wrongful death action against the hospital alleging negligence by the emergency room staff in not taking an adequate history, in failing to physically examine Mr. Gooding, and in not ordering the laboratory tests necessary to diagnose and treat Mr. Gooding’s abdominal aneurysm before he bled out and went into cardiac arrest. Mrs. Gooding’s expert witness, Dr. Charles Bailey, a cardiologist, testified that the inaction of the emergency room staff violated accepted medical standards [i.e., there was a breach]. Dr. Bailey, however, failed to testify that immediate diagnosis and surgery more likely than not would have enabled Mr. Gooding to survive.

The trial court denied the hospital’s motion for directed verdict on causation. The jury found the hospital liable and awarded damages. The hospital appealed. The First District Court of Appeal reversed on the grounds that the trial court should have directed a verdict in favor of the hospital because Mr. Gooding’s chances of survival under the best of conditions were no more than even. The plaintiff, therefore, could not meet the more likely than not test for causation. The Supreme Court affirmed the DCA on this holding.

May 16, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Limited Medical Choices for Claimants in Florida Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Florida Statute 440.13 governs the provision of medical care under Florida’s workers’ compensation system. For the most part, the Employer and its insurance carrier — “E/C” — control the provision of medical care.

The most dominant aspect of this control is the right to select the injured worker’s treating doctors. Unfortunately, most of these doctors suffer from the incurable “Don’t Bite the Hand that Feeds You” disease. All too frequently, the opinions expressed by these doctors benefit the E/C to the detriment of the Claimant.

On rare occasions, E/C loses control of the medical. The most frequent situation is where the worker has suffered substantial injuries requiring emergency surgery in the hospital. The natural sequence is that the surgeon, especially if he or she maintains a private practice, will remain the primary physician after the patient is discharged from the hospital. While this doctor is not hand-picked by E/C, he or she is also not hand-picked by the Claimant.

440.13(2)(c) gives E/C a “reasonable time period” to provide initial medical treatment and care. If E/C fails to provide the initial treatment and care, Claimant “may obtain such initial treatment at the expense of the employer.” Even still, E/C can regain control of the medical under this provision. In Carmack v. Department of Agriculture, 31 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), Claimant suffered a compensable accident, but E/C refused to authorize medical care for psychiatric issues arising from leg and back injuries. Claimant sought care with a psychiatrist and filed a Petition for Benefits seeking authorization of past and future care with the psychiatrist. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) ordered E/C to pay for treatment through the date of the final hearing (workers’ compensation trial), but not for continuing treatment with the particular doctor. Instead, E/C was able to choose another psychiatrist. The JCC’s ruling was upheld on appeal.

April 26, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida Workers’ Compensation — Devil in the Details

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Every type of legal matter is governed by consequential procedural and substantive rules and regulations. Some are universal to every type of case, while some are unique to the particular type of legal matter.

Florida’s workers’ compensation system, in particular, has many consequential unique rules and regulations. This blog will address one of them, the law concerning the authorization of medical services following the recommendation of an authorized medical provider.

Chapter 440 of Florida’s statutes is the statutory body of law that governs Florida workers’ compensation cases. 440.13 is the section of Chapter 440 that addresses medical care issues. Sections 440.13(2) and (3) concern the duties and obligations of employers and their insurance carriers regarding the provision of medical care. (Most cases are handled by insurance carriers.)

For the most part, injured workers are not allowed to select their own doctors. That right rests with the carriers. In many instances, an authorized medical provider will request authorization for referral for medical treatment. Some of the most common requests are for physical therapy, MRIs, referrals to specialists, and injections.

April 17, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Legislation Limiting Access to Courts in Personal Injury Cases

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

On March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill passed by the Florida Legislature aimed at limiting the rights of individuals from seeking and obtaining civil redress in the courts for personal injuries. The bill is House Bill 837. Parts of the bill became effective when it was signed by DeSantis. It will change many existing laws in dramatic ways.

Statute of Limitations. The most obvious change is to limit the time period during which a personal injury case can be filed from four years to two years. This time limitation is known as the statute of limitations. Claims filed after the SOL period will be time-barred.

It is not unusual for individuals involved in accidents to wait years before deciding to pursue a claim. The reasons for delaying are varied but include not knowing a claim can be brought, personal disruption caused by the incident, injury recovery time, an ideological opposition to involving the civil justice system, and bad legal advice.

Proponents of the reduced statute of limitations period are seeking to limit the number of lawsuits that are filed. The opposite may happen. Most personal injury cases are resolved without a lawsuit being filed. Even in cases where a remedy is sought within two years of the incident, it is not unusual for those cases to be resolved without a lawsuit well after two years from the incident date. Reasons for this include injury healing time and ongoing negotiations.

Because of the shortened time period, lawsuits will have to be filed in many cases simply to preserve the right to a remedy even if the case would otherwise resolve amicably without filing. Once a lawsuit is filed, the contingency fee payable by the plaintiff upon recovery rises and the cost of handling the case increases. These factors make it more difficult to settle out of court.

Bottom line: the goal of limiting lawsuits by shortening the SOL will be offset by lawsuits having to be filed to keep from being time-barred. While some people will lose out on a remedy by going over the SOL, the legal system will not see a reduced burden. Hence, the measure is a net negative.

April 2, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Response to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Evidence

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

We have a case in which the defendant knowingly did the same thing after we sued him that he denied doing knowingly in our case. The thing he has denied doing forms the crux of our case.

The case is on the trial docket. In the lead-up to calendar call, defendant filed a Motion in Limine seeking to prevent us from using the subsequent activity as evidence to overcome his denial. The motion has not yet been ruled upon by the trial judge.

Our client sustained catastrophic injuries while working on a construction project, an addition to the defendant’s personal residence. The defendant homeowner hired an unlicensed contractor to manage the project. Typically, Florida law prohibits property owners from using unlicensed contractors to run projects. However, the law provides an exception to the rule for work done on a residence where the homeowner undertakes the project as the owner-builder. See Florida Statute 489.103(7). Under the exception, the homeowner assumes the legal duties and liabilities that would otherwise belong to a licensed contractor, foremost among them protecting the safety of workers and being liable for injuries caused by a breach of the duty. It is our position that the unlicensed contractor was negligent, that this negligence caused our client’s accident, and since this was an owner-builder project, the defendant owner-builder is vicariously liable for the unlicensed contractor’s negligence.

Defendant executed paperwork to obtain the building permit. He is listed in the paperwork as the owner-builder. Defendant claims he did not know until after being sued that he undertook the project as the owner-builder and that the person he hired to manage the project was unlicensed. While these claims should not be enough to overcome the defendant’s liability, we want to stop them in their tracks to limit any chance of them gaining traction with an uncertain jury.

February 6, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // The Miles Fee Promotes Judicial Economy in Florida Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

With limited resources at their disposal, court systems nationwide endeavor to operate with judicial economy. This is one reason why the settlement of cases is encouraged.

Presently, Florida has twenty-nine judges of workers’ compensation claims (JCC) statewide to handle a workforce of some 10 million people. Each JCC’s docket is bursting at the seams. It could be worse.

Prior to the decision in Miles v. City of Edgewater Police Dept/Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions, 190 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2016), it was a crime in Florida for an attorney to accept a fee from a claimant in a workers’ compensation case that was not approved by a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) in accordance with the fee formula contained in section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes. Section 440.105(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The crime was punishable by up to one year in prison (s. 775.082) and a fine (s. 775.082). Any lawyer violating 440.105(3)(c) could also expect to be suspended or disbarred.

In Miles, the JCC rejected an attorney/client contract in which the client, an injured worker, and her union agreed to pay a workers’ compensation lawyer a fee in excess of the amount allowed under 440.34. Because it would have been a financial hardship for the lawyer to handle the case under the formula set forth in 440.34, she withdrew from the case. Unable to find a lawyer to take her case, the injured worker proceeded Pro Se. Her claims were denied by the JCC.

Claimant argued on appeal that Florida Statutes 440.105 and 440.34 violated the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the fundamental right to contract. The First District Court of Appeal agreed.

FLORIDA INJURY ATTORNEY BLAWG