by

brain-mriFlorida’s liability and workers’ compensation systems take a cautious approach when it comes to awarding benefits for mental and emotional injuries. This caution stems from a fundamental public policy concern: without clear limits, allowing recovery for purely emotional harm could lead to a flood of speculative or fabricated claims. As the Florida Supreme Court explained in R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1995), this concern is central to the application of what’s known as the “Impact Rule.”

What Is the Impact Rule?

Under the Impact Rule, a plaintiff cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by another’s negligence unless the emotional distress arises from physical injuries sustained during a physical impact. This requirement is firmly rooted in Florida case law. See Southern Baptist Hosp. of Fla. v. Welker, 908 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2005).

The rule applies to both common law personal injury claims and statutory workers’ compensation claims. It sets a high bar for plaintiffs and claimants seeking compensation for psychological harm, requiring a demonstrable link to physical trauma.

Continue reading

by

scalesIn 1958, Florida joined a small number of states in adopting a legal presumption of negligence against trailing drivers involved in rear-end motor vehicle collisions. This shift was established in McNulty v. Cusack, 104 So.2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), and later endorsed by the Florida Supreme Court in Bellere v. Madsen, 114 So.2d 619 (Fla. 1959).

The Legal Rationale

The presumption is rooted in practical evidentiary concerns. Typically, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving all four elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. But in rear-end crashes, plaintiffs often know they were hit from behind but have no access to the circumstances leading up to the impact—leaving gaps in proof for breach and causation.

To address this, Florida courts created a rebuttable presumption: if a rear-end collision occurs, the trailing driver is presumed negligent. This shifts the burden of production to the defendant, who must offer a “substantial and reasonable explanation” to overcome the presumption. If successful, the case proceeds to the jury without the benefit of the presumption. See Gulle v. Boggs, 174 So.2d 26, 28–29 (Fla. 1965); Brethauer v. Brassell, 347 So.2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Originally developed during Florida’s contributory negligence era—where any negligence on the plaintiff’s part barred recovery—the rule had significant weight. Under today’s comparative fault framework, however, negligence is apportioned, and partial fault does not automatically defeat a claim. See Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495 (Fla. 1937); Stephens v. Dichtenmueller, 207 So.2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), quashed on other grounds.

Continue reading

by

Kings-crown-286x300One of the central purposes of a strong civil justice system is to promote public safety by holding wrongdoers financially accountable. When negligent individuals or corporations know they may face significant financial liability, they are far more likely to act responsibly. Short of criminal prosecution, few things are more effective at incentivizing safe conduct than the threat of losing money.

Sovereign immunity, however, undercuts this principle. Rooted in the old-world doctrine that “the king can do no wrong” (Latin: Rex non potest peccare), sovereign immunity was designed to shield monarchs from legal consequences. Today, this concept survives in modern constitutional monarchies like the United Kingdom, Japan, and the Netherlands. Unfortunately, it has also made its way into American law—particularly in states like Florida.

Florida’s Version of Sovereign Immunity

Florida has adopted a modified form of sovereign immunity for civil cases, including personal injury and wrongful death claims. Under Florida Statute § 768.28(5)(a), the state and its agencies are shielded from full liability. Compensation for damages caused by a government entity is capped at $200,000 per individual and $300,000 per incident, regardless of how catastrophic the harm may be.

So, whether someone suffers minor injuries or a family loses a loved one due to government negligence, the total financial exposure for the state remains the same. This cap applies even if a jury awards millions in damages based on compelling evidence and clear fault.

Continue reading

by

Since 1990, Florida has enforced a statute commonly referred to as the “Free Kill” law. Codified at Section 768.21(8) of the Florida Wrongful Death Act, this provision creates a glaring exception in an otherwise remedial framework intended to support grieving families.

The legislative intent behind the Wrongful Death Act, as stated in Section 768.17, is clear:

“It is the public policy of the state to shift the losses resulting when wrongful death occurs from the survivors of the decedent to the wrongdoer.”

From car crashes and construction accidents to defective products and medical malpractice, wrongful death claims arise in countless tragic ways. When negligence causes a death, Florida law generally allows surviving family members to recover damages — including for mental pain and suffering, often the most devastating aspect of such a loss.

But Section 768.21(8) carves out a critical exception: If the death is caused by medical negligence, parents of adult children (defined under Section 768.18(2) as those age 25 or older) and adult children of deceased parents are barred from recovering non-economic damages — no compensation for grief, anguish, or loss of companionship.

Yes, you read that correctly. If a doctor’s negligence kills your elderly parent or your adult child, Florida law says you’re entitled to nothing for your emotional loss. That’s why Section 768.21(8) has earned the nickname: “The Free Kill Law.”

The Insurance Myth

Proponents of the law claim it helps keep medical malpractice insurance rates down. But studies have not substantiated those claims. In fact, in McCall v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014), the Florida Supreme Court struck down arbitrary damage caps in medical malpractice cases, finding they violated equal protection. The Court specifically rejected the idea that such caps meaningfully reduce insurance premiums or promote physician retention.

Continue reading

by

dollarsIt is common for health and disability (lost wages) insurance carriers to pay benefits to their insureds who are injured due to someone else’s negligence. Many of these policies include reimbursement provisions allowing the insurer to recover payments from any personal injury settlement or judgment obtained by the insured.

How Much Must Be Repaid?

The reimbursement amount depends on two key factors:

  1. Policy Language
  2. The Source of the Settlement or Judgment

Most policies state that the insurer is entitled to full reimbursement from the insured’s recovery—often before the insured or their attorney receives anything. However, when the recovery is from a tortfeasor (the at-fault party), Florida law may limit the insurer’s rights.

Continue reading

by

scales-of-justice-300x203Any lawsuit arising in Florida from the death of an individual caused by the wrongful act, negligence, or default of another person or entity is governed by the Florida Wrongful Death Act (Sections 768.16–768.26, Florida Statutes). This blog highlights some key legal considerations involved in pursuing a wrongful death claim.

Statute of Limitations

Under Section 95.11(4)(d), a wrongful death action must generally be filed within two years of the date of death. However, if the death resulted from medical malpractice, Section 95.11(4)(b) may allow for an extension of that deadline.
(For more details, see our related post: “The Statute of Limitations (SOL) Under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act.”)

Continue reading

by

car-insurance-policyIt is not uncommon for employees to be injured in motor vehicle accidents while acting within the course and scope of their employment. Such incidents frequently implicate multiple layers of insurance coverage.

Regardless of fault, injured employees may be eligible for benefits including workers’ compensation, Personal Injury Protection (PIP), and health insurance (including Medicare). Workers’ compensation and PIP are considered primary over Medicare, meaning they must pay first. If Medicare does make a payment, it typically expects to be reimbursed from any subsequent workers’ compensation or personal injury recovery.

When an injured employee is not at fault, they may seek damages through a third-party civil action against the negligent driver and, if different, the vehicle’s owner. Recovery in these cases typically comes from the tortfeasor’s and owner’s bodily injury (BI) liability insurance or, if applicable, personal assets.

In many cases, however, the at-fault party either lacks BI coverage altogether or carries insufficient limits. Florida law addresses this risk through uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, governed by § 627.727, Florida Statutes. This optional coverage is designed to fill the gap left by the inadequacy—or absence—of BI insurance.

Per § 627.727(1), the purpose of UM/UIM coverage is:

“…for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom.”

The Workers’ Compensation Lien Under § 440.39

Section 440.39, Florida Statutes, grants workers’ compensation (WC) carriers an equitable lien on any judgment or settlement obtained by the injured worker from a third-party tortfeasor. This lien allows the carrier to recover benefits previously paid out, including indemnity and medical expenses.

Continue reading

by

IMG_2117-300x198The belief that a physician’s written prescription must accompany every petition for benefits requesting medical care has taken on the status of religious doctrine in Florida workers’ compensation practice. This blog aims to challenge and clarify that misconception.

A petition for benefits is the workers’ compensation equivalent of a civil complaint. It is the legal vehicle used to initiate litigation against the employer and its insurance carrier (E/C).

Section 440.192, Florida Statutes, outlines the required contents of every petition, its purpose being to equip E/C with sufficient information to make informed decisions.

The so-called prescription doctrine finds its supposed legal foundation in Section 440.192(2)(i), which states:

“The type or nature of treatment, care, or attendance sought and the justification for such treatment. If the employee is under the care of a physician for an injury identified under paragraph (c), a copy of the physician’s request, authorization, or recommendation for treatment, care, or attendance must accompany the petition.”

Many practitioners and judges interpret this subsection as requiring a physician’s written request with every petition seeking medical care. They view the two sentences as linked and dependent. As a result, E/C routinely files motions to dismiss petitions that lack a doctor’s written request.

I respectfully disagree with this widely accepted interpretation.

Continue reading

by

HighwayDriving-thumb-165x249Despite having many potential sources of payment for medical expenses in ride share-related crashes, Uber riders sometimes end up holding the bag.

The most common payment sources are PIP, MedPay, health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and bodily injury liability insurance.

With a few exceptions, every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in Florida must maintain PIP insurance. See Florida Statute 627.733. PIP, which applies without regard to fault, covers medical expenses and lost wages. Most Florida policies limit PIP coverage to $10,000 and apply deductibles.

One of the benefits of the ride share industry is that people can go without owning a vehicle. However, PIP is not automatically available to those PIP passengers who live in Florida and do not reside with a relative who maintains PIP insurance. Likewise, other medical insurance may not be available.

Continue reading

by

car-insurance-policyMuch has been written about the type of insurance coverage available to Uber passengers and other third parties for accidents caused by Uber drivers. Less has been written about the coverage available to Uber drivers and their passengers for injuries caused by third parties such as other drivers.

Currently, we are handling a case for an Uber driver who was hurt through the negligence of another driver. Our client’s passenger was also hurt.

Florida motor vehicle insurance policies offer a variety of coverages. For individuals, only Property Damage Liability and  PIP are mandatory. The other available coverages are Uninsured Motorist/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM), Comprehensive, Collision, and Medical Payments. A premium is charged for each type of coverage.

Uber maintains insurance coverage in Florida with Progressive. We received a copy of the policy applicable to our accident. The available coverages are:

  • Liability to Others – Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability – $1,000,000 combined single limit
  • Comprehensive – $2,500
  • Collision – $2,500
  • Medical Payments – $5,000 each person

Uber rejected UM/UIM. PIP was not an option.

Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
9999 NE 2nd Ave, #304
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com
Palm Beach Gardens
2401 PGA Blvd #140
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design