47 Fla. L. Weekly D715a STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CHRISTEL DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF C.H., A CHILD, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 5th District. Case Nos. 5D20-1595, 5D20-1601. L.T. Case No. 2018-CA-00631. Opinion filed March 25, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Carol A. Falvey, Judge. Counsel: Jennifer Read More »
Uncategorized
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Statutory fee schedules — Deductible — Trial court properly determined that insurer was required to subtract deductible from provider’s total medical charges before applying reimbursement limitations — Error to require insurer to pay 100% of billed amount where billed amount was more than 80% of 200% of applicable fee schedule — Argument that insured failed to comply with conditions precedent was not preserved for appellate review
47 Fla. L. Weekly D713e GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. AFFINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER AT WATERFORD LAKES, PL A/A/O ERNST PEREIRA, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D21-184. L.T. Case No. 2017-SC-12824-O. March 25, 2022. Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, David Johnson, Judge. Counsel: Rebecca Delaney and Scott W. Dutton, of Dutton Law Group, Read More »
Workers’ compensation — Compensable accidents — Hypertension — Presumption of compensability — Law enforcement officers — Judge of compensation claims did not err in finding that the compensability presumption from section 112.18 did not apply to claimant based on expert medical advisor’s opinion that claimant’s pre-employment physical revealed evidence of hypertension — EMA supplied sufficient grounds for JCC’s determination — Court rejects argument that only a “diagnosis” of hypertension at time of pre-employment physical examination can be credited by a JCC to negate compensability presumption — No error in overruling claimant’s Daubert objection to EMA’s testimony on grounds of being based upon speculative or incorrect assumptions
47 Fla. L. Weekly D662f PHILLIP LAKIN, Appellant, v. HERNANDO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE/FLORIDA SHERIFFS RISK MANAGEMENT FUND, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-689. March 16, 2022. On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Mark A. Massey, Judge. Date of Accident: December 9, 2019. Counsel: Kimberly A. Hill from Read More »
Workers’ compensation — Compensable accidents — Going and coming rule — Vehicles — Exclusive personal use — Air conditioning service technician injured while traveling from his final service call location in a company vehicle after informing supervisor that he had finished work for the day — Judge of compensation claims erred by determining that section 440.092(2) didn’t apply because, while claimant had exclusive personal use of vehicle to travel to and from work, he did not have unrestricted freedom to use vehicle outside of travel to and from work — “Exclusive personal” use means that an injury is not compensable where the employee’s transportation is available exclusively to that employee and that the employee can use the transportation as if it were personal property for the purpose of going to and coming from work — Discussion of the traveling employee provision in section 440.092(4), the going-and-coming provision in section 440.092(2), and the relationship between the two — Claimant’s injury was not compensable because he was not in travel status at time of the injury and the going-and-coming provision did apply
47 Fla. L. Weekly D668d KELLY AIR SYSTEMS, LLC, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA OF FLORIDA, and TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants, v. DORINDA KOHLUN, as claimant for Aaron Kohlun, Injured Employee, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-0976. March 16, 2022. On appeal from the Judges of Compensation Claims. Frank J. Clark, Judge. Date of Accident: August 6, Read More »
Contracts — Jurisdiction — Forum selection clause — Choice of law — Provision in confidentiality agreement between two foreign entities which stated that the agreement “will be governed by the laws of the State of Florida of the United States of America (USA), a jurisdiction accepted by the parties” did not confer jurisdiction on Florida courts to enforce the agreement — Provision is a choice of law provision rather than a forum selection clause — Because provision is not a forum selection clause, district court of appeal improperly relied on section 682.18(1) of arbitration code to establish personal jurisdiction without analyzing the due process requirement of minimum contacts
47 Fla. L. Weekly S93a TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. ANCLA INTERNATIONAL, S.A., Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC21-24. March 24, 2022. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Direct Conflict of Decisions. Third District — Case No. 3D18-1078 (Miami-Dade County). Counsel: Rebecca M. Plasencia, Adolfo E. Read More »