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
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 7, 2014 by admin

Personal Injury Claims and Workers’ Compensation Liens: The Fly in the Ointment

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LIENS:
THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT

By Robert P. Byelick,
Esq. & Allison G. Mawhinney, Esquire
Published in March 2014 Edition of Paraclete
  
       For injury litigation professionals, a workers’ compensation lien might be viewed   as complicating factor to the resolution of your case.  As a result, there may be    a tendency to ignore the lien until a case is on the verge of settlement or trial.  However, all sides would be better served to address the lien from the get-go.    Of course, work comp liens arise when a plaintiff is injured in the course and    scope of employment.  The workers’ compensation carrier is required to provide  benefits to the injured employee in the form of lost wages and medical care.      When such benefits are provided, a lien arises upon the plaintiff’s tort claim.    
  
     The
basis for a workers’ compensation lien is found in section 440.39, Fla. Stat.  In the event an employee brings a personal
injury claim for his or her injuries, this statute requires the employee /
plaintiff to notify the workers’ compensation carrier of same so that the
carrier can protect its lien rights. 
Specifically, section 440.39(3)(a), Fla. Stat., provides that “[n]otice
of suit being filed shall be served upon the employer and compensation carrier
and upon all parties to the suit or their attorneys of record by the employee.”
     Once
the statutory notice is provided, the burden shifts to the workers’ compensation
carrier to put the litigants on notice of its lien pursuant to section
440.39(3)(a), Fla. Stat.  Then, as the
parties to the lawsuit negotiate and proceed toward trial, this lien hangs over
them.  The question then becomes:  what portion of its payments is the carrier
entitled to recoup?  Certain parameters
for the recovery are also provided by section 440.39(3)(a), Fla. Stat.  That provision states that the workers’ compensation
carrier should share in the costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the plaintiff
in an amount equal to the percentage of his or her recovery after costs and
attorneys’ fees are subtracted.  Subject
to that deduction, the employer/carrier may recover 100% of the benefits it has
paid in the past as well future benefits to be paid.  However, there is a significant exception to
this rule:  If the plaintiff can
demonstrate that he or she did not recover the full value of his or her damages,
the carrier’s recovery is limited proportionally by the plaintiff’s net
recovery. 
For example,
assume a plaintiff is injured on-the-job by a tortfeasor with low policy limits
such as $10,000.00.  Assume that a verdict
is returned for $20,000.00.  As a
practical matter, the collectible portion of that recovery may be limited by
the $10,000 policy limits.  Under this
hypothetical, the workers’ compensation carrier’s recovery likewise is limited
as follows:
Case value:                                     $20,000.00
Actual Recovery by Plaintiff:                       $10,000.00
–        
Fees and Costs:                                          $4,000.00
=    Net recovery:                                             $6,000.00
$  6,000.00  net recovery ÷ $20,000.00 case value = .3, or 30%
In this example,
if the workers’ compensation carrier paid out $5,000.00 for indemnity and
medical benefits, its lien on the plaintiff’s recovery (for past benefits) is
worth only 30% of that amount, i.e. $1,500.00. Theoretically, that same
percentage applies to future benefits.
Hence, in negotiations,
plaintiffs’ attorneys commonly attempt to maximize their clients’ recovery as
follows: To the tortfeasor, the attorney might push for a higher recovery,
advocating that the plaintiff has a serious claim.  To the workers’ compensation carrier, the
attorney might downplay the value of the case in an effort to limit any lien. In
short, plaintiff’s attorneys have an incentive to argue that the full value of
the case is substantial, but the recovery is limited due to various factors
such as policy limits, collectability, comparative negligence and the like.
In light of
these complicating factors, parties should consider including the attorney for
the workers’ compensation carrier in the mediation of the tort claim. Providing
the workers’ compensation carrier with necessary factual information prior to
the mediation will allow the carrier to be better prepared to negotiate its
lien.  Problems arise when the plaintiff
and defendant negotiate and make a demand upon the workers’ compensation
carrier out of the proverbial blue. Workers’ compensation adjusters may not be
versed in evaluating personal injury claims. 
Therefore, they may be reluctant to reduce their lien.  Hence, such liens become a sticking point at
mediation.  Thus, taking the workers’ compensation
lien into account by providing thecarrier with information necessary to
evaluate and potentially reduce its lien ahead of settlement negotiations may
benefit both sides. 
If the parties
are unable to agree on the amount of a workers’ compensation lien, section 440.39,
Fla. Stat., provides that the trial court judge in the tort action has
jurisdiction to settle such dispute. If a lawsuit has not been filed, the
statute provides that jurisdiction lies the Circuit Court of the county in which
the cause of action arose.  Thus, the plaintiff,
defendant/tortfeasor or the workers’ compensation carrier can file a motion for
equitable distribution of the proceeds of litigation.  Typically, the Circuit Court Judge would then
convene an evidentiary hearing to enable the court to rule on the appropriate
amount of the workers’ compensation lien.  The burden of proof at such hearing is on the
plaintiff to show that the full value of the case was not recovered.  The burden of proof is upon the workers’ compensation
carrier to establish that it has a lien and paid benefits that are reimbursable
under the statute.
It should be
noted that the plaintiff might prefer to negotiate the lien after a settlement
is reached.  But, as indicated in section
440.39(3)(b), Fla. Stat., it is the tortfeasor who is responsible for
satisfying the lien and therefore should consider negotiating the amount of the
lien before a settlement is otherwise reached. 

Finally, section
440.39(7), Fla. Stat., requires the
plaintiff, employer and the carrier to cooperate one another in investigating
and pursuing claims against tortfeasors in various manners.  In turn, subsection (3)(a) allows the trial
court to consider any party’s failure to cooperate in determining the amount of
the carrier’s lien.  Personal injury
litigants would therefore be well-served by recognizing the issue of a workers’
compensation lien at the outset, keeping the carrier informed, and avoiding any
appearance of non-cooperation.  In the
end, this will limit the potential for a workers’ compensation lien to become a
“fly in the ointment” and all sides would benefit.  

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

Blog Archives

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 © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982