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

January 30, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Negligence — Workers’ compensation immunity — Estoppel — Negligence action filed against employer after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed workers’ compensation petition — Employer is not estopped from asserting workers’ compensation immunity where, in compensation proceeding, employer asserted that no work accident causing injury occurred at all, not that accident occurred outside the scope of employment — An employer is not estopped from asserting workers’ compensation exclusivity merely because it had denied compensability of an alleged workplace injury — Employer is entitled to litigate whether a compensable accident occurred in a compensation forum

45 Fla. L. Weekly D194g

Torts — Negligence — Workers’ compensation immunity — Estoppel — Negligence action filed against employer after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed workers’ compensation petition — Employer is not estopped from asserting workers’ compensation immunity where, in compensation proceeding, employer asserted that no work accident causing injury occurred at all, not that accident occurred outside the scope of employment — An employer is not estopped from asserting workers’ compensation exclusivity merely because it had denied compensability of an alleged workplace injury — Employer is entitled to litigate whether a compensable accident occurred in a compensation forum

LEROY MCNAIR, Appellant, v. MICHAEL DORSEY and JAMES “BILL” ARMSTRONG, d/b/a Armstrong Tree Service, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D18-698. January 22, 2020. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Charles W. Dodson, Judge. Counsel: Paul M. Anderson of Anderson & Hart, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. James N. McConnaughhay and David A. McCranie of McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver & Stern, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.

(WINOKUR, J.) Leroy McNair challenges summary judgment entered in favor of James Armstrong and Michael Dorsey, who claimed entitlement to workers’ compensation immunity from McNair’s suit. We affirm and find that Armstrong and Dorsey are not estopped from claiming workers’ compensation immunity.

I.
McNair and Dorsey were coworkers employed by Armstrong’s company, Armstrong Tree Service. McNair claimed he was injured while carrying a tree branch with Dorsey to a wood chipper. McNair then filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits, but later received a Notice of Denial from Armstrong’s insurer stating that there was “no compensable accident.”

McNair then filed a second petition for benefits. The parties filed a Uniform Statewide Pretrial Stipulation in that compensation claims case, in which Armstrong denied that McNair’s accident was compensable under workers’ compensation law, claimed that no compensable accident occurred, and took the position that McNair’s accident did not occur within the course and scope of his employment. Armstrong also alleged in the stipulation that McNair fraudulently misrepresented his prior medical and employment history.

A month after the stipulation was filed, McNair voluntarily dismissed his workers’ compensation petition. McNair then instituted an action in circuit court alleging negligence on the part of both Armstrong and Dorsey. McNair’s amended complaint argued that Armstrong was estopped from claiming that workers’ compensation provided McNair’s exclusive remedy since he had claimed in the compensation case that McNair did not suffer a compensable accident within the course and scope of his employment.1

Armstrong filed a motion for partial summary judgment alleging the McNair’s “accident occurred within the course and scope of his employment,” and that they were therefore entitled to workers’ compensation immunity.2

The trial court granted Final Summary Judgment in favor of Armstrong, concluding that McNair’s exclusive remedy was through a workers’ compensation claim.

II.
A trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Mills v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The moving party must demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. USCardio Vascular, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 993 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Summary judgment has been found “particularly unsuitable in a case where the facts and circumstances indicate the possibility of an estoppel.” Elliott v. Dugger, 542 So. 2d 392, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Excluding exceptions not relevant here, Florida’s statutory workers’ compensation scheme provides the exclusive remedy for an injured employee. § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. The immunity from suit conferred by this exclusivity of remedy, however, “may be lost to an employer whose conduct amounts to an estoppel, since it would be inequitable for the employer to invoke the said statute in bar of an employee’s action or suit.” Quality Shell Homes & Supply Co. v. Roley, 186 So. 2d 837, 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).

An employer is estopped from asserting workers’ compensation immunity when the following occurs: 1) a representation of a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; 2) reliance on that representation; and 3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel that is caused by the reliance on said representation. See Specialty Emp. Leasing v. Davis, 737 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (quoting Dep’t of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So. 2d 397, 400 (Fla. 1981)). Florida courts have held that “an employer may be equitably estopped from raising a workers’ compensation exclusivity defense if the employer denies the employee’s claim by asserting that the injury did not occur in the course and scope of his or her employment.” Coastal Masonry, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 30 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (citing Schroeder v. Peoplease Corp., 18 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)).

III.
A party should not always be foreclosed from claiming entitlement to workers’ compensation immunity to a lawsuit simply because it denied compensability in an earlier compensation claims proceeding. This is especially true when the employer, like Armstrong claims here, asserts that no work accident causing injury occurred at all. This is why Byerley v. Citrus Publ’g, 725 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), does not apply. In Byerley, the employee sought compensation, claiming that she suffered a workplace injury. The employer denied compensability, claiming that the “injury did not arise out [of] the course and scope of [Byerley’s] employment,” because it occurred after she “clocked out and had exited the building.” Id. at 1231. Byerley then filed a tort action, to which the employer claimed that Byerley’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation. Id. The Fifth District held that the employer was estopped from claiming workers’ compensation exclusivity based on its initial representation that no accident occurred within the course and scope of employment. Id. at 1232-33.

The specific allegation of the employer in Byerley was that the accident did not, in fact, occur within the course and scope of employment, and was therefore outside the scope of the workers’ compensation system. They reversed that position in the later tort suit, arguing that the employee’s only remedy was in the workers’ compensation system. The Fifth District ruled that this course would “allow employers to avoid all liability for employee job related injuries.” Id. at 1232.

This does not appear to be the case here. McNair’s claimed accident, if it happened as he alleged, certainly occurred in the course and scope of his employment. Armstrong’s claim was that no accident causing injury occurred at all. Either the factfinder would determine that the accident occurred, in which case it was indisputably within the course and scope of employment, or that the accident did not occur, in which case there was no compensable injury.3 Unlike the employer in Byerley, it was not inconsistent for Armstrong to claim in the compensation proceeding that no accident occurred, but to later claim in the tort suit that any injury alleged was in the course and scope of employment. While Armstrong arguably took “inconsistent positions” in the compensation proceeding and in the tort suit, it is simply not the kind of inconsistency that should estop them from asserting workers’ compensation immunity.4

An employer is not estopped from asserting workers’ compensation exclusivity merely because it had denied compensability of an alleged workplace injury. The employer is entitled to litigate whether a compensable accident occurred in a compensation forum. The employer cannot, however, claim that the employee doesn’t belong in a compensation forum because the accident was not work-related, and then turn around and claim that the employee must be in a compensation forum because the accident was work-related.

Nor does Gutierrez require a different result. In that case, the employer (Coastal Masonry) argued in the later negligence action that Gutierrez had not been its employee. Id. at 548 (“In . . . its Answer, Coastal specifically denied that Gutierrez was a Coastal employee . . . .”) (emphasis in original). In other words, the Court held that Coastal could not assert workers’ compensation immunity, arguing that Gutierrez’s claim belonged in a compensation forum, and at the same time argue that Gutierrez was not an employee, which would preclude him from a compensation forum. This holding is consistent with our decision here. The employer in Gutierrez would not have been estopped from asserting workers’ compensation immunity if it had merely denied the employee’s claim in the earlier compensation case. But the employer there did much more: it affirmatively denied that the employee belonged in a compensation forum at all. In this respect, denying that the claimant is an employee is similar to denying that an accident occurred during the course and scope of employment: both claims affirmatively deny that the claimant, even if the accident and injury occurred as alleged, is permitted to assert the claim in a compensation proceeding. It is in this circumstance that an employer cannot assert workers’ compensation immunity.

Here, in contrast, Armstrong affirmatively admitted in its Answer that McNair was employed by Armstrong. Accordingly, Gutierrez does not apply.

IV.
Armstrong initially denied that any accident occurred within the course and scope of McNair’s employment. After McNair filed suit, Armstrong filed a motion for summary judgment. Since the alleged injury would have been covered under the workers’ compensation statute, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment and finding that Armstrong is not estopped from claiming workers’ compensation exclusivity.

AFFIRMED. (B.L. THOMAS and KELSEY, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1We analyze this case solely in terms of whether Armstrong’s stipulation estopped his workers’ compensation immunity defense. For clarity, we refer to both appellees as “Armstrong” in this opinion.

2Workers’ compensation immunity means that “[e]mployers are generally immune from liability in negligence actions brought by employees for injuries occurring in the course and scope of employment,” because “[t]he Florida workers’ compensation system provides the exclusive remedy for an employee injured in the course and scope of employment.” Pensacola Christian Coll. v. Bruhn, 80 So. 3d 1046, 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). This immunity applies to coworkers as well. See Holmes Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Duffell, 651 So. 2d 1176, 1177-78 (Fla. 1995) (holding that “the same immunity extends to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business”).

3To be clear, we do not claim that McNair would necessarily have been entitled to compensation if the factfinder determined that a workplace accident occurred. Armstrong asserted other defenses that may have foreclosed compensability. But such a finding would show that a workplace accident was presented, which places the case in the ambit of workers’ compensation law.

4Put another way, if the employee in Byerley were to prevail in a tort suit, she would have proven an accident that was outside the scope of employment. In contrast, if McNair were to prevail in this suit, he would have proven an accident that was inside the scope of employment. This fact demonstrates why the employer’s assertion of worker’s compensation immunity was improper in Byerley, but not improper here.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • 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