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

September 16, 2016 by admin

Employer-employee relations — Retaliatory discharge for filing workers’ compensation claim — Damages — Award of damages was excessive in light of absence of medical evidence that employer’s conduct caused employee’s medical condition to worsen or caused employee to suffer past or future psychological harm

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2096b
op of Form

Employer-employee
relations — Retaliatory discharge for filing workers’ compensation claim —
Damages — Award of damages was excessive in light of absence of medical
evidence that employer’s conduct caused employee’s medical condition to worsen
or caused employee to suffer past or future psychological harm — Remand for
remittitur or new trial — Judgment improperly awarded post-verdict interest —
Error to deny leave for employee to assert claim for punitive damages where
there was a reasonable showing of a basis for recovery of such damages —
Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Although complaint made passing
reference to equitable relief, action was one for damages, and plaintiff would
be entitled to attorney’s fees under offer of judgment statute if he recovers a
judgment in an amount at least 25 percent greater than the offer

FAITH
FREIGHT FORWARDING CORPORATION, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. CARLOS ANIAS,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 3rd District. Case No. 3D14-2653. L.T. Case No.
10-3954. Opinion filed September 7, 2016. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge. Counsel: WermuthLaw, P.A., and J.
Michael Wermuth and Osnat Dorot; Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., and
Shannon Kain (Hollywood) and Mark Hicks, for appellant/cross-appellee. Sina
Negahbani, for appellee/cross-appellant.

(Before
ROTHENBERG, LAGOA, and LOGUE, JJ.)

(LOGUE,
J.) In a case arising out of a retaliatory discharge for seeking workers’
compensation benefits, Faith Freight Forwarding Corporation (“Employer”)
appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Carlos Anias (“Employee”) and
the denial of its motion for remittitur. The Employee cross-appeals the orders
denying leave to assert a claim for punitive damages and entitlement to
attorneys’ fees.

We
affirm the jury’s finding of liability, but, in light of the absence of medical
evidence that the Employer’s conduct caused the Employee’s medical condition to
worsen or caused the Employee to suffer past or future psychological harm, we
conclude that the jury’s award of $750,000 was excessive. The fact that the
Employee cried on the stand, as noted by his lawyer at oral argument, simply is
not sufficient. See Glabman v. De La Cruz, 954 So. 2d 60, 63
(Fla. 3d DCDA 2007) (“[A]fter careful review of the record, we are compelled to
reverse the jury verdict on damages as they are so excessive that they could
only have been a product of passion and emotion based on [the plaintiff’s]
emotional testimony rather than the result of the record presented.”); Olen
Props. Corp. v. Cancel
, 178 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“In this sex
discrimination and retaliation case, we reverse the $700,000 award of
non-economic damages as excessive.”); City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986
So. 2d 634, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“The jury awarded each plaintiff
$1,183,544. Of that sum, $1,100,000 was awarded for compensatory damages other
than lost wages. We conclude that the award to each individual for the
non-economic damages was grossly excessive.”); Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v.
Atkinson
, 64 So. 3d 131, 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing $3.5 million in
noneconomic damages and $1.7 million in damages for past and future lost wages,
where the noneconomic damages award was excessive and the damages for past and
future lost wages were not supported by the evidence).

Similar
to Glabman, Hogan, and Atkinson, the failure to grant the
motion for remittitur constituted an abuse of discretion. We remand for the
trial court to determine a remittitur amount, or order a new trial on damages
if the party adversely affected by the remittitur does not agree to the
remitted amount. See § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). We also note that
the final judgment improperly awarded post-verdict interest. See Amerace
Corp. v. Stallings
, 823 So. 2d 110, 114 (Fla. 2002); Ford Motor Co. v.
Jimenez
, 870 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“The Amerace
decision establishes the general rule that interest is not awardable for the
period after the verdict but before the judgment.”). Without discussion, we
reject the other arguments raised by the Employer.

Turning
to the Employee’s cross appeal, we reverse the order denying leave to assert a
claim for punitive damages. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, there was
“a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant
which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” §
768.72(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). We remand for a new trial on punitive damages.

Finally,
we reverse the order which held the Employee’s offer of judgment pursuant to
section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2014), was invalid. Section 768.79(1) applies
“[i]n any civil action for damages filed in the courts of this state . . . .”
In construing the term “action for damages,” the Florida Supreme Court held
that section 768.79 is inapplicable in cases where the plaintiff sought both
damages and equitable relief. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., v. Horowitch,
107 So. 3d 362, 374 (Fla. 2013). This case, however, is unlike Diamond
Aircraft
. Instead, this case more closely resembles DiPompeo
Construction Corp. v. Kimmel & Associates, Inc.
, 916 So. 2d 17 (Fla.
4th DCA 2005), where the plaintiff’s claim was an action for damages because
the “real issue” before the court was whether the plaintiff owed the
compensation.

The
Employee’s passing reference to “equitable relief” in the operative complaint
does not change our conclusion, particularly where, as here, the Employer could
not identify any equitable relief that was ever at issue in the discovery or
trial of this matter. See id. at 18 (“[T]his court has looked
behind the procedural vehicle used to bring a lawsuit and focused on whether
the ‘real issue’ in the case is one for damages.”); see also Diamond
Aircraft
, 107 So. 3d at 373 (citing DiPompeo with approval). Thus,
the Employee is entitled to recover attorney’s fees under the offer of judgment
statute if, after the issue of damages has been fully resolved on remand, it
“recovers a judgment in an amount at least 25 percent greater than the offer.”
§ 768.79(1).

For
these reasons, we affirm the jury’s finding of liability, but we reverse the
jury’s award of damages, the trial court’s award of post-verdict interest, the
order denying leave to assert a claim for punitive damages, and the order
denying entitlement to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the offer of judgment
statute.

Affirmed
in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • 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