Important Recent Florida Case Law

Friday, July 23, 2010 | 0

NEW! McKenzie v. Mental Health Care, 1D09-3922, (07/23/2010): A claimant and a defendant misunderstood a portion of the Florida Statutes addressing 'mental and nervous' injuries, causing the 1st District Court of Appeal to reverse and remand in an opinion that clarified the statute.

NEW! McLean v. McLane Grocery District, 1D09-6191, (07/20/2010): A judge of compensation claims erroneously concluded that a claimant and an employer had reached a settlement agreement.

Hernandez v. Paris Industrial Maintenance, 1D09-4183, (07/07/2010): A claimant is allowed to submit testimoney from more than one vocational rehabilitation provider.

Wyeth v. Toscano, 1D09-5138, (07/07/2010): The 1st District Court of Appeal acknowledged that while it could have simply affirmed the judge of compensation claims' ruling because substantial evidence supported it, a lengthier analysis of the legal standard applicable to temporary partial disability benefits was necessary.

Florida Sheriff's Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund, 1D09-4901, (07/07/2010): The Special Disability Trust Fund assessment is constitutional, even if a self-insured group paying the assessment derives no benefit from it.

Orange County v. New, 5D09-2970, (06/25/2010): An employer's action to enforce a $2,595 costs award failed because the underlying statute provided no relief for employers to pursue a costs award with a 'rule nisi' action.

Castellon v. AIG Claims Services, Inc., 1D09-3434, (06/25/2010): A judge of compensation claims cannot award an attorney fee for services a worker's attorney provided that were unrelated to a pending workers' compensation claim.

Bifulco v. Patient Business & Financial Services, Inc., SC09-172, (06/24/2010): Pre-suit notice is not required in retailiatory discharge claims against public entities because the state has waived sovereign immunity.

Fernandez v. Blue Sky/Venecia Food Corp., 1D09-4112, (06/22/2010): A judge of compensation claims should not have dismissed a petition for benefits because the defendant failed to prove that it was prejudiced by a claimant's refusal to answer questions about her immigration status.

Gauthier v. Florida International University, et al., 1D09-3978, (06/22/2010): A carrier may not rely upon a statute of limitations defense to deny a claim because it failed to make the claimant aware of her entitlement to permanent impairment benefits.