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 16, 2015 by admin

Workers’ compensation — State employees

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2358aTop of Form

Workers’
compensation — State employees — Evidence supported JCC’s finding that
claimant suffered a compensable accident for which she has coverage from state
— Appellate court is without jurisdiction to address claim that section
445.009(11), Florida Statutes unconstitutionally bars claimant’s entitlement to
indemnity benefits

RAMONA ZAVALA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF MID-FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A METRO ORLANDO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION/ESIS, INSPERITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LP/ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY/SEDGWICK CMS, Appellees, and WORKFORCE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA/FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES-DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 1st District. Case No. 1D14-4617. Opinion filed
October 15, 2015. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.
Neal P. Pitts, Judge. Date of Accident: November 12, 2013. Counsel: Kelli
Biferie Hastings of the Law Office of Kelli B. Hastings, PLLC, Orlando, and
Adam Littman of Adam Ross Littman, P.A., Winter Park, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Kristen J. Longberry of The Longberry Law Firm, P.A.,
Orlando, for Appellees and Gerald F. Znosko of Znosko & Reas, P.A.,
Orlando, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

(RAY, Judge.) In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals a
nonfinal order that adjudicates compensability of her accidental injury. In a
bifurcated order meeting the requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(C), the Judge of Compensation Claims found that the State
of Florida (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) is Claimant’s employer for the purpose
of workers’ compensation coverage under subsection 445.009(11), Florida
Statutes (2013), and that, although Claimant sustained a compensable workplace
injury, she is not entitled to payment of indemnity benefits in accordance with
the same statutory provision. In the cross-appeal, the State challenges the
JCC’s finding of a compensable workplace injury, which was based on the JCC’s
rejection of the applicability of the “going and coming” rule.

Because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding of a
compensable workplace injury, we affirm the issue raised on cross-appeal
without comment. With regard to the appeal, we also affirm the JCC’s finding
that the State is Claimant’s sole employer for payment of benefits under the
plain language of subsection 445.009(11), which deems a participant in an adult
or youth work activity under chapter 445 to be “an employee of the state for
purposes of workers’ compensation coverage.”

Although we affirm the order on appeal on the issue of compensability —
i.e., the determination that Claimant sustained an accidental workplace injury
for which she has coverage from the State — we cannot, because of
jurisdictional restraints, reach the second issue raised on appeal by Claimant:
whether subsection 445.009(11) unconstitutionally (or impermissibly) bars her
entitlement to indemnity benefits. In an order entered November 26, 2014, this
court appropriately advised the parties that this appeal and cross-appeal would
proceed as one taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(C)
and thus would be limited to the appealable portions of the nonfinal order
adjudicating compensability. See Consultants & Designers v. Brown,
677 So. 2d 915, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (concluding rule permitting appeal of
nonfinal order adjudicating compensability “contemplates that only the ruling
on the issue of compensability may be challenged on interlocutory appeal”).
Here, the JCC’s denial of indemnity benefits goes beyond the issue of
compensability. The appealed order is a nonfinal order with regard to indemnity
benefits because the JCC reserved for another day adjudications on Claimant’s
entitlement to medical benefits and other claims.* Thus, the ruling on
indemnity benefits is an issue this court may address only upon entry of an
order resolving, with finality, all the disputes raised in the underlying case.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM that portion of the appealed nonfinal order
adjudicating compensability and expressly decline to consider Claimant’s
constitutional challenge to subsection 445.009(11) for lack of jurisdiction.
(ROBERTS, CJ., and THOMAS, J., CONCUR.)

__________________

*Consistent with the nonfinal nature of the order, the JCC directed the
parties to schedule a second merits hearing to resolve the substantive claims
and defenses.

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

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 © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982