Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

Archives for July 2020

July 24, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Exculpatory clause in employment agreement between plaintiff and his employer which provides security services for clients, waiving right of plaintiff to recover damages from any client which are covered by workers’ compensation law — Disclaimer is unambiguous, does not violate Florida public policy, and is enforceable — Trial court properly entered summary judgment for defendant, a customer of plaintiff’s employer, in plaintiff’s premises liability action

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1749a Torts — Exculpatory clause in employment agreement between plaintiff and his employer which provides security services for clients, waiving right of plaintiff to recover damages from any client which are covered by workers’ compensation law — Disclaimer is unambiguous, does not violate Florida public policy, and is enforceable — Trial Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

July 24, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Workers’ compensation — Temporary disability benefits — Personal leave benefits — Employer offset — Judge of compensation claims erred in denying claim for temporary disability compensation benefits based on the fact that claimant received full pay for the period at issue which was docked against claimant’s bank of personal sick or leave time — Section 440.09(1) requires that an employer must pay compensation or furnish benefits required if an employee suffers an accidental compensable injury and no evidence was introduced that employer “bought back” claimant’s sick leave or that the alternate benefits were employer provided — Court rejects argument that wages paid to claimant were in lieu of benefits — Payment of wages in lieu of compensation must be an act clearly understood between the employer and the employee, and the “in lieu of” act is not satisfied when an employer pays wages through a right that the claimant has to receive it which is not related to, or dependent in any way upon, the existence or non-existence of a workers’ compensation claim — Employer is not entitled to an offset where employer did not raise the offset defense, in the event compensation benefits were awarded, and no evidence was introduced that alternate benefits were of a qualifying nature — JCC lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order employer to reinstate claimant’s personal leave benefits

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1702a Workers’ compensation — Temporary disability benefits — Personal leave benefits — Employer offset — Judge of compensation claims erred in denying claim for temporary disability compensation benefits based on the fact that claimant received full pay for the period at issue which was docked against claimant’s bank of personal sick Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

July 24, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Workers’ compensation — Temporary partial disability benefits — Fraud or misrepresentation — Post-injury earnings — Medical condition — Claimant who received post-injury paychecks from delivery service, but who claimed the paychecks were for work performed by claimant’s husband and were only issued to claimant due to her husband’s lack of a bank account — Judge of compensation claims did not err in rejecting employer/carrier’s misrepresentation defenses — Competent substantial evidence supports JCC’s finding that claimant did not misrepresent her post-injury earnings because she did not actually earn wages from the delivery service — Simply reporting payments to the IRS does not necessarily mean claimant earned them herself — Even assuming claimant should have reported payments as her own earnings, it is difficult to conclude that she misrepresented the payments because she told e/c about her situation months before filing the DWC-19 form at issue — JCC did not err in finding no fraud on claimant’s DWC-19 forms based on conclusion that claimant lacked the requisite intent because she did not knowingly misrepresent her earnings with the intent to obtain benefits — While JCC would have been justified in finding that claimant lacked credibility in light of claimant’s dealings outside the workers’ compensation claim, it is within the JCC’s discretion to resolve a conflict in evidence and make credibility determinations — Fact that claimant was open about her arrangement with delivery service ultimately constitutes competent substantial evidence in support of JCC’s finding that claimant lacked requisite intent for fraud when submitting forms — JCC did not err by failing to find that claimant misrepresented her medical condition to her doctors — Although e/c alleges there was inconsistency between claimant’s presentation to her doctors and her documented activities in surveillance video, the misrepresentation statute requires e/c to prove claimant made false, fraudulent, incomplete, or misleading oral or written statements for the purpose of securing compensation — Doctors’ testimony that claimant’s activities shown in surveillance video were not inconsistent with her diagnosis also provided competent substantial evidence in support of JCC’s finding — JCC did not err in determining that claimant did not misrepresent her medical condition in her deposition testimony — To extent there may be inconsistencies between surveillance video and claimant’s reported physical capabilities during those time periods, the JCC’s ultimate conclusion that there was no intentional misrepresentation is supported by JCC’s finding that claimant is generally a poor historian

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1727a Workers’ compensation — Temporary partial disability benefits — Fraud or misrepresentation — Post-injury earnings — Medical condition — Claimant who received post-injury paychecks from delivery service, but who claimed the paychecks were for work performed by claimant’s husband and were only issued to claimant due to her husband’s lack of Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

July 24, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Automobile accident — Slow speed rear-end collision — Referral relationship between plaintiff’s former counsel and her chiropractor — Plaintiff opened door for defendant to challenge plaintiff’s statement that she was referred to chiropractor by hospital — Trial court did not abuse discretion in allowing inference and argument regarding inconsistent statements as to referral to chiropractor for purpose of challenging plaintiff’s credibility

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1675a Torts — Automobile accident — Slow speed rear-end collision — Referral relationship between plaintiff’s former counsel and her chiropractor — Plaintiff opened door for defendant to challenge plaintiff’s statement that she was referred to chiropractor by hospital — Trial court did not abuse discretion in allowing inference and argument regarding Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

July 24, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Bad faith — Discovery — Privileged information — Appeals — Insurer seeking certiorari review of trial court order requiring insurer to produce documents, which insurer claims are privileged and/or work product documents, after in camera inspections by a special master and the trial court — Petition is denied where insurer failed to preserve the documents at issue for appellate review — In the absence of a record reflecting the material reviewed by the trial court, appellate court cannot review trial court’s findings — Insurer may not cure incomplete appendix under rule 9.220(a) where nothing indicates that insurer followed proper procedure for filing documents at issue under seal with the trial court — Because documents are not in trial court’s record, they cannot be transmitted to appellate court for review under the rule

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1714a Insurance — Bad faith — Discovery — Privileged information — Appeals — Insurer seeking certiorari review of trial court order requiring insurer to produce documents, which insurer claims are privileged and/or work product documents, after in camera inspections by a special master and the trial court — Petition is denied Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982