Case Law Update May 2022
Updated 5-27-22
| Guerera v. Becton Dickinson Co./Sedgwick, ___ So.3d___ (Fla. 1st DCA 5/4/22) Attorney Fees/Benefits Obtained The JCC denied entitlement to E/C-paid attorney fees asserted to be owed for P&I on IBs, and for an increase in the AWW. The DCA affirmed as to the P&I fee issue but reversed as to the fee denial for the AWW increase. The JCC found “no actual or real benefit was secured” since the claimant was at the Maximum Compensation Rate. However, the DCA found the increase raised the 80% TPD threshold and could affect potential offsets if the claimant were to receive federal disability benefits under F.S s. 440.15(9)(a). The DCA also rejected the JCC’s basis for denial that the increase awarded was smaller than what had been claimed, noting the law does not require an exact match between a claim and an award. Click here to view Opinion LFI Ft. Pierce/ESIS v. Dwayne Homes/Blue Goose Growers/ FFVA, ___So.3d___(Fla.1st DCA 5/6/22) Compensability/Estoppel/WC Immunity/Going and Coming The claimant was involved in an MVA as he rode home with a coworker who passed out 45 minutes from the jobsite, rendering the claimant an incomplete tetraplegic. Both men worked for Blue Goose (BG) as leased employees through LFI. The claimant initially sued both BG and LFI in tort. LFI did not appear at trial, but BG asserted WC immunity (alleging the special errand exception to going and coming rule). BG obtained summary judgment and the claimant subsequently dismissed BG (with prejudice) and LFI in that action. The claimant then filed PFBs against both employers. LFI argued the claim was not compensable under going and coming. The JCC ruled LFI was estopped from this argument as LFI had benefitted from BG’s contrary argument in circuit court, as they shared a special employer relationship under F.S. 440.11(2). The JCC also held the claim was compensable as the driver’s dehydration which caused him to pass out was a special hazard. Lastly the JCC found the dehydration arose out of employment and was a “ticking time bomb.” The DCA reversed all three findings. They found the claimant did not prove the elements of estoppel (no mutuality of parties/parties had adverse interests) and special hazard (no particular hazard at an off-premises location/no close association with access route of work premises). In relation to “time bomb” finding, the DCA noted the driver was dehydrated, not the claimant, and the employer’s alleged deprivation of water as a cause of dehydration and the accident was not foreseeable. They further held the accident causing his injuries did not arise out of employment, citing Valcourt. They also affirmed BG’s dismissal from the WC case as coverage would have been imputed to LFI, but as they reversed compensability, no coverage existed. A concurring opinion noted that although the claimant has received somewhat conflicting rulings as to the proper forum, his decision to dismiss LFI in circuit court to seek benefits under chapter 440 may leave him without a forum to test his claims. Click here to view Opinion |