Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, 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 Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 16, 2015 by Tom

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 — Automobile — Insurer who filed a claim under her automobile insurance policy after her vehicle was damaged in an accident sued insurer claiming breach of policy after insured declared the vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed the actual cash value of vehicle — Breach of contract — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that insurer breached the policy by using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value — District court did not err in ruling insurer’s methodology for calculating actual cash value complied with Florida law — As matter of first impression, Section 626.9743(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that, in calculating “actual cash value” of insured’s vehicle based on actual cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle “derived from … two or more comparable motor vehicles available [in local market area] within the preceding 90 days,” did not require that “actual cash value” equal actual cost to purchase comparable vehicle — Insurer’s use of the Uniform Condition Adjustment, advertised prices of comparable motor vehicles, and the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation system to calculate the actual cash value of insured’s vehicle complied with Florida statute — Statute did not require that insurer use “retail cost as determined from generally recognized motor vehicle industry source” if it utilized one of other two statutory alternative methods for determining cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that it breached the policy by failing to pay, as part of vehicle’s actual cash value, dealer fees incurred in purchasing replacement vehicle — Insurer was not required to pay insured’s out-of-pocket dealer fees — Under Florida and Eleventh Circuit law, “actual cash value” in an insurance policy means replacement cost less depreciation, and replacement cost includes dealer fees if the policyholder is reasonably likely to need to incur dealer fees — Insured failed to satisfy the standard for inclusion of dealer fees in replacement cost where insured showed a reasonable likelihood that she would incur dealer fees if she chose to purchase her replacement vehicle from a dealer and that a policyholder is reasonably likely to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer, but failed to show that a policyholder is reasonably likely to need to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer
  • Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action alleging that vibration from defendant’s installation of sheet piles during construction on its parcel caused damage to plaintiff’s building — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages based on allegation of gross negligence where plaintiff did not make required evidentiary showing to support such a claim — Report produced by third-party contractor warning defendant against the use of large vibratory compaction equipment in construction project, when read together with contractor’s deposition testimony, offered no evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim that contractor warned defendant against using vibratory equipment in installation of sheet piles — Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, which drew illogical conclusions from contractor’s report, offered no support for gross negligence claim
  • Torts — Premises liability — Malls — Dangerous condition — Landscaping features — Vicarious liability — Action against operator of mall arising from injuries plaintiff suffered after stepping into a hole or depression in a raised landscape area which separated mall’s parking lot from the sidewalk that led to mall’s entrance — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant because, as a matter of law, the landscaped area was not a dangerous condition — Evidence that a few people had walked across the landscaped area to get to the sidewalk was not sufficient to create a duty where there was no evidence that the grass bed had become a well-trampled footpath or that the grass bed has been in continuous and obvious use as a pedestrian shortcut such that defendant was put on constructive notice of the condition — Defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for condition created by landscapers where landscapers were not found liable
  • Torts — Automobile accident — Permanent injury — Causation — Trial court improperly directed verdict on causation given conflicting evidence which would have permitted reasonable jury to conclude that plaintiff had a pre-existing back injury caused by weight training or prior participation in competitive crew rowing
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Vandalism — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict where policy limited coverage to insured’s “residence premises,” and insured did not “reside” at the property at the time of loss — Fact that insured was no longer leasing the property and was intending to move back when property was vandalized does not alter analysis

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 © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982