Resources

Updated 9-29-23 No DCA decisions for September.    View More

Updated 8-30-23-23 Francois v. JFK Med.Ctr.Ltd.,___ So.3d ____(Fla. 4th DCA 8/30/23)440.205 Retaliation/Evidence The DCA affirmed the Circuit Court’s granting summary judgment to the employer. The employee alleged his termination was due to his filing a workers’ compensation claim, and that the employer’s alleged grounds (that he used excessive force on a patient) were pre-textual.  The trial court applied the business judgment rule, which prohibits courts from second-guessing the business judgment of employers, making the only relevant inquiry “whether the employer... View More

Updated 7-20-23 No DCA decisions yet for July. View More

Updated 6-27-23 Friesen v. State of Florida Highway Patrol/Div. of Risk Mgmt., ___ So.3d___ (Fla. 1st DCA 6/21/23)Heart/Lung Statute/Disability/Occupational Disease The DCA affirmed the JCC’s ruling that the claimant failed to satisfy the disability element required to prove compensability under F.S. s. 440.151(1).  After completing a pre-employment physical in 2001, the claimant was evaluated by his PCP in 2008, diagnosed with hypertension, taken out of work for a few days and prescribed medicine. No WC claim was filed nor were... View More

Ortiz v. Winn-Dixie/Travelers/Sedgwick,___ So.3d___(Fla.1st DCA, 5/31/23)(Bill Rogner)Statute of Limitations The 1st DCA affirmed the JCC’s finding that the SOL had expired and that the claimant failed to present evidence that the statute had been tolled. The claimant originally injured her kidney in a compensable 2003 accident. She continued to receive authorized care thereafter. In 2015 her care was transferred to Dr. Young, who saw her on an authorized basis from 2015 through 2019. The carrier last paid for authorized treatment... View More

Updated 5-3-23 Jody Wolfe v. Lily M. Ruby, 1D22-3289 (Fla. 1st DCA 4/5/2023) Subject Matter Jurisdiction The claimant (Ruby) filed a PFB alleging an injury while housekeeping for Wolfe. Wolfe moved for summary final order (MSFO) seeking dismissal of the case for lack of SMJ on grounds that FS 440.02(17)(c)(1) expressly excludes housekeeping services in private homes from the definition of employment. A supporting Affidavit attested that Wolfe does not operate a business at her residence, does not employ four... View More