Abbey Adams Logo

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

Articles

by

Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Retaliation — Limitation of actions — No error in granting summary judgment in favor of employer on claim that employer had discriminated against employee on basis of sex and family status and retaliated against employee after she complained of the discrimination — Trial court properly found that action was time-barred under one-year limitation period provided in section 760.11(5) because action was commenced more than a year after date when Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had issued right-to-sue notice — Although the relevant provisions of section 760.11 refer to a determination by “the commission,” which is defined as the “Florida Commission on Human Relations” in section 760.02(2), “the commission” in the context of this case may include the EEOC — Because the EEOC’s right-to-sue notice expressly informed the employee that the EEOC was “unable to conclude” that the information obtained established violations of the statutes and did not certify that the employer was in compliance with the statutes, the scenario provided in section 760.11(8) applied — As such, employee had to commence her civil action no later than one year after the date when the EEOC had issued the right-to-sue notice — Discussion of Woodham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. and Joshua v. City of Gainesville — EEOC’s use of “unable to conclude” language does not equate to a determination that “there is not reasonable cause” necessitating application of 760.11(7) — Court rejects argument that, under circumstances of case, four-year limitation period in section 95.11(3)(f) should have applied — Conflict certified

48 Fla. L. Weekly D357a AISY ALEU, PHARM. D., Appellant, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., a Florida not-for-profit-corporation, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D22-697. February 15, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE21-005185(04). Counsel: William R. Amlong, Karen Coolman Amlong, and Jennifer […]

by

Torts — Premises liability — Dismissal of crossclaims for contractual and common law indemnity — Appeals — Trial court’s misapplication of law regarding premises owner’s right to seek contractual or common law indemnity from another was not preserved for appeal where error first appeared on face of dismissal order and crossclaimant did not move for rehearing or otherwise timely bring error to trial court’s attention

48 Fla. L. Weekly D352a TOPVALCO INC., Appellant, v. MICHAEL A. WOLFF and 1045 LLC, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-3143. February 15, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CA-006508-XXXX-MB. Counsel: Ross D. Bussard and Edward R. Nicklaus of Nicklaus […]

by

Torts — Damages — Future medical expenses — Evidence — Experts — Life care planner — In awarding damages for future epidural and facet injections, trial court abused its discretion by allowing plaintiff’s life care planner to testify, based on planner’s own medical opinions, that plaintiff would require injections for the rest of his life — Although life care planner has a medical degree and is a practicing neurosurgeon, he was not offered as a medical expert or as an expert acting in a dual capacity — An expert witness, offered as a life care planner, may not infuse his or her own medical opinions in calculating certain costs of future medical care when such future care is not recommended by a treating physician or medical expert — Award of damages reversed where, without life care planner’s testimony, there was no reasonable evidence upon which jury could award challenged damages

48 Fla. L. Weekly D380a DEARTA ANDERSON-MOODY and SANDRA ANDERSON, Appellants, v. BRANDON WILSON, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-2560. February 15, 2023. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Donna M. Keim, Judge. Counsel: Michael P. Regan, Jr., and Brian M. Guter, Florida O’Hara Law Firm, Jacksonville; and Warren B. Kwavnick, Cooney […]

by

Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Discovery — Carte blanche discovery — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by ordering carte blanche discovery without applying applicable standard of proof for slip-and-fall cases in section 768.0755(1) — Plaintiff is limited to information regarding actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall at the supermarket at issue — Plaintiff is not entitled to information regarding negligent mode of operation

48 Fla. L. Weekly D396a PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. COLIN ROTH, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D22-2124. February 17, 2023. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia J. Newton, Judge. Counsel: Edward G. Guedes of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., Coral Gables, for Petitioner. Samuel […]

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product — Claims file — Waiver — Appeals — Certiorari — In breach of contract action where coverage was in dispute, it was a departure from the essential requirements of the law for trial court to compel production of insurer’s claims file materials without conducting an in camera inspection to determine whether there were any relevant documents that would meet standard for production of otherwise privileged documents — Insurer did not waive its work product privilege by putting its pre-suit investigation at issue in its answer when it alleged certain causes of the damage to the home, which would have been part of its investigation

48 Fla. L. Weekly D298b FAMILY SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JOSHUA H. STEIN and CLAUDIA E. STEIN, Respondents. 4th District. Case No. 4D22-1468. February 8, 2023. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Gary L. Sweet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432021CA001137CAAXMX. Counsel: Sara Sandler Cromer […]

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.