Important Recent Case Law for Florida

Thursday, June 19, 2014 | 0

NEW! F.T.M.I. Operator v. Limith, 1D13-5357, (06/09/2014): A Florida appellate court rejected an employer's petition for review of a nonfinal order denying its motion to dismiss a worker's claim for attorney fees based on the worker's alleged failure to prosecute her claim.  

NEW! Holl v. United Parcel Service, 1D13-2745, (06/09/2014): The statutory 401-week limitation period for "temporary benefits" that existed in Florida law in 2002 applies to awards of temporary total disability benefits, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled. 

NEW! Brevard County School Board v. Acosta, 1D13-4503, (06/09/2014): A divided 1st District Court of Appeal panel ruled that an employer did not have to pay for a worker's surgery to her left shoulder in the absence of evidence that not having this surgery would hinder her recovery from surgery for a work-related injury to her right shoulder.

NEW! Caceres v. Sedano's Supermarkets, 1D13-5653, (06/03/2014): An injured worker has 30 days from either the date of the manifestation of his symptoms from a repetitive trauma injury or the last date of his exposure to the repetitive trauma – regardless of which happened first – to file a claim for his injury and have that claim be timely, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled. 

NEW! Trejo-Perez v. Arry's Roofing, 1D13-1889, (06/03/2014): A fractured Florida 1st District Court of Appeal panel concluded that an injured roofer is not entitled to a neuropsychological evaluation by a Spanish-speaking psychiatrist.

NEW! Davis v. Nascar Holdings, 1D12-5177, (05/29/2014): The Florida 1st District Court of Appeals has upheld a statute that imposes a cap on benefits for "mental and emotional injuries."

NEW! AMS Staff Leasing v. Ocha Engineering Corp., 11-3706, (05/28/2014): An employer did not waive its ability to demand arbitration of a codefendant's arbitration claim against it by filing a motion to dismiss the codefendant's claim during the workers' compensation proceeding for the claim for which the codefendant sought indemnification.

NEW! Santizo-Perez v. Genaro's Corp., 1D13-2674, (05/19/2014): A Florida appellate court overturned the denial of death benefits to the surviving family of a grocery store worker who was run over by the jealous boyfriend of one of his coworkers as he was gathering shopping carts in the store parking lot. 

NEW! Johns Eastern Co. v. Bellamy, 1D13-3613, (05/14/2014): The 1st District Court of Appeal granted rehearing of a firefighter's claim for benefits and vacated its prior order denying him an award of his attorney fees for the appeal.

NEW! Hubner v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 5D13-1350, (05/09/2014): A Boy Scouts of America volunteer who was injured in a car crash while returning home from a trip to document the completion of an Eagle Scout project was within the scope of his duties as a "registered volunteer" with the organization at the time of his accident, a Florida appellate court ruled. 

NEW! Roig v. Mosquera, 3D13-390, (05/07/2014): A Florida appellate court revived an injured worker's action seeking to compel her former employer to explain his failure to comply with a prior order to provide orthopedic care to the worker.

NEW! State of Florida v. Brock, 4D13-962, (04/30/2014): A worker who presented a false Social Security number to obtain employment, but who never filed a workers' compensation claim, still ran afoul of Florida Statutes Section 440.105(4)(b)9, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled. 

NEW! Professional Roofing & Sales v. Flemmings, No. 3D13-2162, (04/30/2014): A Florida appellate court ruled that an employer was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether a worker's civil suit against him should have been dismissed because he was allegedly justified in striking the employee with a baseball bat to prevent the employee from harming him.

Stephens v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 13-10170 and 13-15741, (04/24/2014): A federal appellate court ruled that the commercial general liability carrier for the contractor on a construction project had no duty to indemnify the contractor for the tort claim brought by the estate of a worker who died while working on the project.