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

October 1, 2015 by admin

Civil procedure — Dismissal — Torts — Error to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2224a

Civil procedure — Dismissal — Torts — Error to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss, either because defendant was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity or because defendant was released in earlier settlement, where resolution of these issues required court to make factual determinations outside pleadings
 
ERIC FLITE, Appellant, v. MEDI-TRANS, INC., a/k/a MTI MEDI-TRANS, INC., a/k/a MEDITRANS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and UNITED NATIONAL TRANSPORT NETWORK, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D13-4572. September 30, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 09-19908 (12). Counsel: Amy D. Shield of Amy D. Shield, P.A., Boca Raton, and Lavalle, Brown & Ronan, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant. Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

 

(PER CURIAM.) The circuit court granted a defense motion to dismiss, either because the defendant was entitled to immunity under the workers’ compensation statute or because, in an earlier settlement, the plaintiff released the defendant. Resolution of these issues required the court to make factual determinations outside of the pleadings. Ordinarily, affirmative defenses cannot be raised by a motion to dismiss, unless “the face of the complaint is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the defense.” Wallisville Corp. v. McGuinness, 154 So. 3d 501, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). See also Stubbs v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 988 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We reverse and remand for the circuit court to consider the issues by way of summary judgment or an evidentiary hearing. (GROSS, TAYLOR, JJ., and SHEPHERD, CAROLINE, Associate Judge, concur.)
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • 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