WORKER’S COMPENSATION: APPEALS: NONFINAL ORDERS: ORDER DECLINING TO RULE ON JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION BASED ON LACK OF EVIDENCE WAS NOT APPEALABLE UNDER FLA. R. APP. P. 9.180(b)(1)(A) PROVIDING FOR APPELLATE REVIEW OF NONFINAL ORDERS ADJUDICATING JURISDICTION

Bonafide Masonry v. Saxton, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D586 (Fla. 1st DCA March 5, 2015)

An order of the Judge of Compensation claims, declining to rule on a jurisdictional question based on lack of evidence, was not appealable under Fla. R. App. P. 9.180(b)(1)(A), which provides for appellate review of nonfinal orders adjudicating jurisdiction. Instead … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

ARBITRATION: AN AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE FUTURE DISPUTES IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION IS VOIDABLE UNDER THE FLORIDA ARBITRATION CODE (FAC) BUT NOT UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA): AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN A FLORIDA RESIDENT AND A NONRESIDENT CORPORATION IMPLICATES INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IS GOVERNED BY THE FAA: ARBITRATION OF A WORKER’S COMPENSATION RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CLAIM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY: EMPLOYER DID NOT WAIVE ITS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE WORKER’S COMPENSATION RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CLAIM BY FAILING TO DEMAND ARBITRATION OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM: THREAT TO FIRE PLAINTIFF IF HE DID NOT SIGN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE DURESS: AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WORKER’S COMPENSATION RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CLAIM WAS NOT SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE: AS A RESULT, IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER ISSUE OF PROCEDURAL UNCONSCIONABILITY

AMS Staff Leasing, Inc. v. Taylor,  ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D575 (Fla. 4th DCA March 4, 2015) 

On January 7, 2015, the court issued its original opinion, which was summarized in this blog. On March 4, 2015, the court issued a revised opinion, but the court’s holding and reasoning remained the same. As a result, … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

WORKER’S COMPENSATION: CIVIL PROCEDURE: RES JUDICATA: RES JUDICATA MAY NOT BE BASED UPON THE DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A PREMATURE CLAIM BECAUSE THE DISMISSAL IS NOT A FINAL ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS

O’Connor v. North Okaloosa Medical Center, ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2586 (Fla. 1st DCA December 12, 2014)

When a petition for permanent total disability benefits under the Worker’s Compensation Act was denied without prejudice as premature, the employee filed a petition for temporary total disability benefits, which the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied based … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

TORTS: WRONGFUL DEATH: WORKER’S COMPENSATION: INSURANCE: WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE: WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERS EMPLOYERS AGAINST LIABILITY UNDER THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION ACT: EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERS EMPLOYERS FOR LIABILITY TO EMPLOYEES WHEN WORKER’S COMPENSATION IMMUNITY DOES NOT EXIST: THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED EMPLOYEE HAD STANDING TO SUE THE EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR FAILING TO PAY THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S WRONGFUL DEATH: THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE EMPLOYEE’S LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE EMPLOYER’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE EMPLOYEE’S DEATH, AND THE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR ANY OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY A WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW: IN ADDITION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS RELEASED FROM LIABILITY TO PAY THE JUDGMENT BY A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CASE, WHICH PROVIDED THAT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS, THE ESTATE WAIVED ITS BENEFITS UNDER THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION ACT AND ELECTED ITS REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYER AND THE CARRIER AS TO THE COVERAGE PROVIDED TO THE EMPLOYER

Morales v. Zenith Insurance Company, ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly S721 (Fla. December 4, 2014)

After the employee was crushed to death by a palm tree during the course of his employment, his widow entered into a worker’s compensation settlement agreement with the employer and its liability insurance carrier.  When the parties entered into the settlement agreement, … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

TORTS: WRONGFUL DEATH: WORKER’S COMPENSATION: INSURANCE: WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE: WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERS EMPLOYERS AGAINST LIABILITY UNDER THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION ACT: EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERS EMPLOYERS FOR LIABILITY TO EMPLOYEES WHEN WORKER’S COMPENSATION IMMUNITY DOES NOT EXIST: THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED EMPLOYEE HAD STANDING TO SUE THE EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR FAILING TO PAY THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S WRONGFUL DEATH: THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE EMPLOYEE’S LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE EMPLOYER’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE EMPLOYEE’S DEATH, AND THE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR ANY OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY A WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW: IN ADDITION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS RELEASED FROM LIABILITY TO PAY THE JUDGMENT BY A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CASE, WHICH PROVIDED THAT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS, THE ESTATE WAIVED ITS BENEFITS UNDER THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION ACT AND ELECTED ITS REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYER AND THE CARRIER AS TO THE COVERAGE PROVIDED TO THE EMPLOYER

Morales v. Zenith Insurance Company, ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly S721 (Fla. December 4, 2014)

After the employee was crushed to death by a palm tree during the course of his employment, his widow entered into a worker’s compensation settlement agreement with the employer and its liability insurance carrier. When the parties entered into the settlement agreement, … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...