Case Law Update September 2025
| Updated 9/19/25 Murphy v. Polk County BOCC/Commercial Risk, ___So.3d ___(Fla.1st DCA 9-3-25) Statute of Limitations/Reservation on Attorney Fees and Costs In a lengthy opinion, the DCA held that in determining whether the Statute of Limitations (SOL) has run, dismissal of a PFB reserving as to fees and costs (but where no benefits were provided) will not toll the statute. However, if there were benefits provided pursuant to the dismissed PFB, a reservation on fees and costs may toll the SOL. In the underlying case, the claimant’s DOA was 9/10/16. His first PFB was filed 1/11/17, the E/C then denied benefits, and the claimant dismissed on 7/17/17 (but reserved as to fees/costs). The claimant filed a second PFB on 5/28/19. Subsequent PFBs in 2020 and 2021 were filed but dismissed. The JCC found the SOL had run. The DCA noted that the fee reservation in the initial dismissal, where no benefits were provided, did not toll the SOL because fees are collateral to benefits, and not benefits themselves. Thus, there was no pending PFB, and the SOL expired 9/10/18. Subsequent PFBs were also time barred. Click here to view Opinion Sedgwick Claims Mgt. Svcs/the GEO Group, Inc. v. Thompson, ___So.3d___ (Fla. DCA 9-3-25) Expert Medical Advisors/Daubert The DCA affirmed the JCC’s Order, but wrote to address whether F.S. s. 440.25(4)(d) (governing procedures for workers’ compensation hearings) precludes a Daubert challenge to Expert Medical Advisor (EMA) opinions. The parties’ respective IME opinions conflicted on the MCC of alleged neck injuries. The JCC denied the E/C’s Daubert objection to the claimants’ IME. The JCC appointed Dr. Cameron as the EMA to resolve the medical conflicts. Dr. Cameron found the MCC of the claimant’s herniated cervical disc was the work accident. The E/C moved to strike Dr. Cameron’s opinions at depo and at trial per Daubert, which the JCC denied. The JCC awarded benefits based on Dr. Cameron’s opinions. The DCA undertook a lengthy analysis of prior opinions considering admissibility of EMA opinions and Daubert. They ultimately held that although the JCC erred in applying Daubert standard to determine admissibility of the report, it was harmless error as the statute precludes Daubert challenges to EMA opinions. Click here to view Opinion |