Case Law Update May 2024
Updated 5.28.24
Palm Beach County School District/Sedgwick v. Smith, ___So.3d ___ (Fla. 1st DCA 5/22/24)
Prevailing Party Costs
The parties attended mediation where the E/C agreed to accept and treat a tailbone injury, and the claimant dismissed claims for a low-back injury. The Joint Stip agreed to attorney fees and costs as to the tailbone issue and further stated all other issues were resolved “with the exception of attorney fees and costs” which the JCC approved. The JCC then denied the E/C’s subsequent motion for costs for prevailing on one issue. The JCC noted that prior costs had been waived in the agreement, and that the E/C did not prevail as the claimant had also prevailed on some issues. The DCA reversed and remanded, noting the Joint Stipulation was silent as to E/C costs. They further agreed with the E/C that Aguilar v. Kohl’s Dept. Store and Hillsborough v. Kubik allow the JCC to find multiple prevailing parties due to the unique situation in workers’ compensation litigation where “the different types of workers’ compensation benefits resist comparison and distillation to determine an overall victor.” Click here to view Opinion
American Airlines/Sedgwick v. Lopez, ___So.3d___(Fla. DCA 5/22/24)
Statute of Limitations/Tolling/Attorney Fees
The DCA reversed the JCC’s decision that the E/C’s payment of attorney fees and costs was a benefit within the meaning of F.S. s. 440.19(2). After the claimant’s compensable 8/8/19 DOA, the E/C last paid medical on 9/22/20 and last paid indemnity on 11/13/20. Pending fee and cost claims from PFBs filed 7/24/20 were resolved in a stip of 4/28/21 and approved by the JCC on 5/3/21. On 12/1/21 (more than a year after the last benefit payment) the claimant filed a PFB. The claimant filed another PFB on 6/6/22 and dismissed the 12/1/21 PFB. (Although not stated it appears that dismissal reserved as to fees and costs). The E/C asserted the SOL as to that PFB. The DCA noted the JCC erred in framing the question as “when does the time clock begin running for the statute of limitations, tolled because of a pending fee issue?”, stating that such a reservation does not toll the SOL. The DCA further noted the JCC erred in disregarding the plain language of F.S.s. 440(19)(2), improperly equating the reservation of jurisdiction for fee/cost claims with tolling of the SOL. They rejected the JCC’s equating payment of fees and costs with a “benefit” having a tolling impact on the claim. The DCA rejected his sua sponte ruling that the 12/1/21 PFB extended the SOL, notwithstanding it was dismissed the following June. Lastly, they rejected the JCC’s decision to allow further proceedings on the 6/6/22 PFB, which they held was barred as untimely. Click here to view Opinion
Girardin v. AN Fort Myers, LLC/Gallagher Bassett, ___So.3d ___(Fla. 1st DCA 5/8/24)
Attendant Care/Required Findings
The DCA vacated the JCC award of nonprofessional attendant care. The Order awarded care services provided by the claimant’s husband from 11/3/21 to 3/31/22, 30 hours a week at the federal minimum wage. The JCC found some services to be attendant care but did not specify which “services” qualified for compensation. The DCA accepted the E/C argument that the JCC could not award nonprofessional attendant care that fell “…within the scope of household duties and other services normally and gratuitously provided by family members.” The DCA noted the JCC failed to make findings that the payment ordered was not for normal gratuitously provided household duties. The DCA set aside fees and costs awarded for such services. They noted this decision did not affect a prior similar 2022 appeal with the same parties with overlapping issues. Click here to view Opinion