Florida Injury Attorney Blawg

Seamen injured on board vessels may be entitled to a wide array of economic and non-economic compensation from their employers and ship owners depending on the circumstances of each case.

NO-FAULT BENEFITS

Regardless of why a particular accident happens, every injured seaman is entitled to Maintenance & Cure benefits from his employer. These benefits are considered no-fault benefits, or benefits payable without regard to fault. Maintenance is the amount of money an injured seaman needs to sustain himself on land in a manner similar to how he was being sustained by the employer at sea. The primary elements of Maintenance are food and shelter. Employers try to pay pre-determined amounts, typically $20-$40/day, without regard to the actual facts. Employees can challenge the employer on the set amounts. For example, we recently represented an injured seaman who received $84/day. This was an unusually high amount that should not be viewed as anything other than an illustration of the point that the employer can be challenged and will sometimes voluntarily pay more than the industry standard. Interestingly, a seaman's actual wages do not dictate how much the employer must pay, although it may influence how much the employer will pay. The reason for the higher payment is to offset the amount of money the employer may have to pay later on for past lost wages. (See below for a discussion of this element.)

Cure is medical care that is reasonable, related and necessary for the injuries.

The employer's obligation to pay for Maintenance & Cure ends when the injured seaman reaches maximum medical cure. MMC is defined as the point beyond which there is no reasonable expectation of further medical improvement. Reaching MMC does not necessarily mean that the seaman has healed to his pre-accident state of health. MMC is determined by the treating doctor or doctors.

The third and final benefit available without regard to fault are the wages a seaman would otherwise have earned through the duration of the voyage but for the accident. In a recent case, we represented a gentleman who worked on a research vessel that was involved in projects at sea for months on end. Because he was injured during the early stages of a voyage and had to be evacuated from the vessel, as long as he remained unable to return to the vessel he was entitled to receive his full Wages.

It is not uncommon that the employer has to be sued to pay these benefits.

FAULT BASED COMPENSATION

Whether or not a seaman receives any other type of compensation for his injuries comes down to the question of whether or not there was any negligence on the part of the employer or vessel owner in causing the accident. If the answer is No, the seaman receives nothing more than the benefits described above.

Where fault is established, injured seamen may be eligible for one or more of the following types of compensation.

Past Wage Loss. The measurement of this damage element is the difference between the amount received in maintenance or contractual voyage payments and the wages the seaman would otherwise have earned but for the accident.

Future Lost Earning Capacity. This measure is somewhat trickier to calculate than the formula for past wage loss. It includes predictions and calculations regarding work restrictions, vocational qualifications, work-life expectancy, and present value. For example, in a case we handled involving a tri-level spinal fusion surgery, we argued that our 54 year old client would never again be able to work as a crewman, which would result in a total or at least a partial loss of wages over a work-life expectancy of 10 and 15 years.

Continue reading "Maximizing Seaman's Recovery In Jones Act Personal Injury Cases" »

The Republican Establishment has chosen Willard Mitt Romney to lead its people to The Promised Land. It points to his success in making large sums of money as the primary qualifying factor for the selection.

G-d chose Moses to lead the Jews to their Promised Land. Interestingly, what persuaded G-d to select Moses was his compassion more than his accomplishments.

The Book of Exodus tells us that Moses was rescued from the Nile River as an infant and raised by the Pharoah's daughter. One day he witnessed an Egyptian beating a Jew. He killed the Egyptian. Later he intervened in a fight between two Jews, the circumstances of which forced him to flee Egypt. While in the desert, he saved the seven daughters of Jethro from evil shepherds.

These acts showed perseverance, courage and fortitude. This was not enough for G-d.

Continue reading "Mitt's No Moses" »

Most freedom-loving Americans believe that intelligence, skill, character, and temperament are the most important qualities of a judge. Not so Florida Governor Rick Scott. Ideology is what matters most to this governor ... right-wing ideology at that.

In a blatant effort to subvert a free-acting judiciary, Governor Scott is seeking to change the way judge's are selected in Florida. He is pushing legislation that will remove the selection process from the hands of independent groups and give it to the governor. Shocking.

Reproduced below is a Letter to the Editor published in today's Miami Herald which touches nicely on the subject:
******************************
Keep Florida's judiciary independent
 
There's a challenge afoot this legislative session for Florida Bar Association President Scott G. Hawkins and the Bar's board members: To protect Florida's justice system from a force that, if left unchecked, would eviscerate it.

Gov. Rick Scott plans to completely overtake Judicial Nominating Committee appointments. The governor has stated he would like to move all JNC appointments to the Office of the Governor, rejecting the time-honored and traditional input of the Florida Bar. This would amount to the biggest judicial power grab in Florida's history.

Don't be fooled by the promises and rhetoric: This is not about the philosophical belief that Florida would have a stronger, more independent judiciary if picked exclusively by the executive branch. Gov. Scott has an agenda for "his" judiciary.

Continue reading "Florida Governor Rick Scott Seeks to Pack the Courts " »

Doctor selection under the Defense Base Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA) is crucial. It can make the difference between fairness and injustice.

Through 42 U.S.C. 1651(a), the LHWCA is the substantive law for the Defense Base Act. Under the LHWCA, employers/insurance companies are required to provide injured workers with medical care. Injured workers have the right to choose one doctor. Once the selection is made, any change must come by agreement of the E/C or order of the Secretary of Labor's office. Injured workers do not want to be reliant on either alternative. Accordingly, the initial choice is key.

Money has a tendency to corrupt. Sadly, doctors are not above being influenced by insurance company money to render false opinions unfavorable to their patients. Doing otherwise jeopardizes the flow of future insurance company business. This is why we see the same doctors being selected time and again in every type of workers' compensation case, from state workers' compensation cases, to Defense Base Act cases, to LHWCA cases.

Like sexual prostitutes, whore doctors do whatever is required to please the customer. Unlike sexual prostitutes, however, the immoral acts of whore doctors harm innocent victims ... their own patients. So much for the Hippocratic Oath.

Given these harsh realities, it is especially important for injured workers to select their doctors carefully. There are many doctors of high principle who are not beholden to insurance companies. Lawyers who represent injured workers know who they are and can help in the selection process. Unfortunately, in a large percentage of cases the dye has already been cast by the time proper legal advice is sought. Most injured workers have already begun treating by the time they meet with a lawyer.

Continue reading "Doctor Selection Under the Defense Base Act (and LHWCA) - Choose Right or Lose" »

Just as the Jones Act, the Federal law which governs personal injury cases involving seamen, relies on FELA, the Federal Employers Liability Act, established in the 19th century to protect railroad workers, for it's substantive law, the Defense Base Act relies on the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act for its substance law.

42 U.S.C. 1651(a), the first clause of the Defense Base Act, states that the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq. apply with respect to any employee of a defense contractor injured overseas in the course and scope of employment. Due to the relative underdevelopment of DBA jurisprudence, legal guidance in DBA cases often derives from LHWCA precedent.

Read our other blogs to learn the particulars of the DBA/LHWCA. It is a fascinating and complex area of the law with significant consequences for those who are severely injured and their loved ones.
***********************************
Contact us toll-free at 866-785-GALE or by email to learn your rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals - the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

Arbitration has become the procedural remedy of choice for the business community in almost every type of civil dispute, from employment matters to nursing home negligence. Arbitration involves the resolution of civil disputes by a panel of costly private arbitrators rather than by government-paid judges and citizen jurors. If for no other reason than that arbitration abrogates the jury system, it is generally looked upon with disfavor by lawyers who represent plaintiffs in civil disputes.

Whether a dispute is arbitrated is a matter of agreement between the parties. Typically, the agreement is made at the outset of the relationship. For example, in the context of nursing homes, the arbitration agreement will be part of the package of admission documents. It is not unusual for the individual to such an agreement to be unaware of the provision or feel like he or she has no choice in the matter, a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

Courts generally favor arbitration agreements, Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d 707, 711 (Fla. 2005), but such agreements are subject to state law contract defenses such as unconscionability, Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). To succeed in an unconscionability argument, both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be shown. Bland, ex rel. Coker v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 927 So. 2d 252, 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Continue reading "Checklist of Considerations Regarding Florida Abitration Agreements" »

Much was published in 2011 by The Miami Herald in its multi-part exposé, Neglected to Death - see this blog, Nursing Home/Assisted-Living Facility Negligence - Shame on Governor Scott and Florida Legislature, for links to some of the articles - with regard to the horrible conditions existing in many of Florida's nursing homes. One of the points made is that state regulators have been unwilling or unable to regulate the homes and punish the worst offenders.

Private lawsuits are another avenue for exacting punishment against negligent and grossly negligent operators. However, a common drawback to this remedy is that many of the homes operate without the financial means to pay for their negligence, by not maintaining adequate liability insurance and shielding themselves behind layers of shell corporations. This is certainly the case with many of the smaller facilities.

In recent times, another barrier has come in the way of fully and adequately punishing wrongdoers. Arbitration.

Traditionally, victims harmed by nursing home negligence have sought their remedy through the courts, with juries making the final call on the issues of fault and damages. Arbitration removes these decisions from citizen jurors, turning them over, instead, to costly arbitrators. Business interests prefer arbitration, which is looked upon with disfavor by victims' lawyers.

Continue reading "Arbitration Clauses Enforceable in Florida Nursing Home Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases" »

Civilized societies provide for those in need. Following work related accidents, many injured employees find themselves in need of financial and medical assistance. Considering the harsh treatment of injured workers through its workers' compensation system, it can be fairly said that the state of Florida is not civilized.

It wasn't always this way. There was a time in Florida when injured workers were treated with dignity and respect, furnished without fuss with sufficient medical and indemnity (lost wages) benefits to survive comfortably while working towards recovery and returning to work.

No more. Today's workers' compensation system is a gauntlet of detours and obstructions with little reward at the end for those few who somehow manage their way through. Making matters worse is that the lawyers who represent injured workers are severely restricted, by law, in the amount of compensation they may receive for fighting successfully against insurance companies that wrongly deny benefits, while no such limits apply to the lawyers who defend employers and their insurance companies.

This sorry state of affairs has been 20+ years in the making, although, not surprisingly, some of the more egregious aspects were promulgated during the reign of Jeb Bush as Florida's governor, from 1999 to 2007. (Governor Bush took a page from his brother George's book, who, as the Governor of Texas, presided over the dismantling of his state's WC system.)

Here's a sampling of how Florida reached this low point.

In 1990, amendments to Chapter 440, the body of law that contains Florida's workers' compensation laws, reduced the duration of temporary monetary benefits from 350 weeks to 260 weeks. Temporary benefits are payable to injured workers during the recovery process prior to maximum medical improvement. The 1990 amendments also reduced the 10 year wage loss program to a maximum of seven years with entitlement dependent upon the extent of permanent impairment. Under the 10 year wage loss system, injured workers left with a permanent impairment were eligible for lost wages so long as they conducted a good faith job search and were able to establish a connection between their injury and wage loss. In the case of a 6% permanent impairment, for example, which is the current guideline rating for a herniated intervertebral disc, a serious injury, the 1990 amendments reduced eligibility from 520 weeks to 78 weeks of wage loss. (Eligibility does not mean entitlement. As noted above, under the eligibility system, a job search must be performed and a connection between the wage loss and injury must be shown. Under an entitlement system, nothing has to be done or proved to receive the benefit.) In 2003, during the Bush years, the wage loss system was eliminated altogether, replaced by one in which an injured worker left with a 6% permanent impairment, for example, would be entitled to 12 weeks of impairment benefits and nothing more.

In essence, then, in little more than 21 years, lost wage benefits have gone from a maximum of 520 weeks, to a maximum of 364 weeks, to, in most instances, 12 weeks or less, a 98% reduction! (Not many injuries command a permanent impairment rating in excess of 6%.)

Prior to 1993, it was written into law that the workers' compensation laws were to be liberally construed in favor of of the injured worker. In other words, a tie goes to the injured worker. This was the friendly mentality under which the system had operated for nearly 60 years, since the Florida Legislature first enacted the "Workman's Compensation Act" in 1935. The Florida Legislature eliminated this precedent in 1993.

Continue reading "Florida's Workers' Compensation System's Steady Decline Into the Abyss" »

Passengers and seamen seeking to be compensated by vessel owners for personal injuries must show that the accident was caused by a condition onboard which makes the vessel unseaworthy. (Employees may also seek compensation against their employers under the Jones Act.) Unseaworthiness is a modified negligence-based system, rather than one of strict liability, meaning that injured parties have the burden of proving that an unseaworthy condition was the proximate cause of the injury. Edynak v. Atl. Shipping, Inc.., 562 F.2d 215, 222 (3d Cir., 1977).

One of the main differences between the purely negligence-based system and the unseawothiness system, and perhaps the most severe limitation on the doctrine of unseaworthiness, is that only a "condition" renders a ship unseaworthy, and that isolated, personal negligent acts are categorically excluded as a basis for liability on the part of the shipowner. Usner v Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 500 (1971); see also Edynak, 562 F.2d at 224 ("[U]nseaworthiness is a condition, not an act."); Daughdrill v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 709 F. Supp. 710, 712 (E.D. La. 1989) ("[A] vessel is not deemed unseaworthy because of an isolated act of the crew, for that would destroy the distinction between unseaworthiness and negligence.").

Continue reading "Examples of Unseaworthy Conditions Creating Liability Aganst Vessel Owners" »

Insurance companies make money by paying out less in claims than they receive in premiums. As long as premium rates are fairly regulated, healthy competition exists within the industry to keep rates in check, and carriers operate in good faith with regard to the claim process, there is nothing wrong with carriers making respectable profits.

Insurance premiums are regulated by the state government. Arguably, the carriers' rate requests are given too much deference by the governing authorities. Considering the carriers' financial resources and the pro-business/anti-consumer climate in Tallahassee, with a Governor Scott and the House and Senate in Republican hands, this is not a surprise.

Competition among carriers is brisk, although it is curious how similar their rates are and how the premiums are always at or near the maximum levels allowed by law.

All carriers try to pay as little as possible on all claims. The carriers that seek this outcome through fair and honest dealings should not be faulted. There is nothing wrong with thorough and expeditious fact gathering and inquiry.

Unfortunately, not all carriers handle claims in good faith.

An insurance policy is a contract been the insured and the insurer/carrier. Certain obligations are imposed on each party to the insurance contract. The insured must pay the premium and cooperate in the claims process, while the carrier must process claims in good faith and pay the proper amount on legitimate claims.

One of the tools at the disposal of carriers to gather information about claims is the Examination Under Oath, or EUO. An EUO is an oral examination conducted under oath by an insurance company of an insured making a claim under a policy. A carrier's right to conduct the EUO is a matter of agreement between the insurer and the insured. Its terms will be set forth in the insurance policy.

Continue reading "Examination Under Oath (EUO) Limited by Florida's 3d District Court of Appeal" »

Two legislative sessions have passed since State Senator Chris Smith, a Democrat, whose District 29 encompasses parts of Broward and Palm counties, voted with Republicans to eliminate reasonable fees from the state's workers' compensation system for claimants' attorneys. The purpose of the bill was to keep injured workers from being able to fight for their rights. It has worked as expected.

The bill approved by Senator Smith replaced a statute that required employers and their insurance carriers to pay claimants' attorneys a "reasonable attorney's fee" for successfully securing wrongly denied workers' compensation benefits. This was done very simply by removing the word reasonable from the statute, then imposing arbitrarily low caps on fees regardless of the time, effort, and cost invested to win the case.

Not surprisingly, the legislature placed no caps on defense attorney fees, the amount employers and insurance carriers could paid their attorneys to defend cases, win, lose, or draw. A good example of this happened in Jennifer Kauffman v. Community Inclusions, Inc./Guarantee Insurance Company, a case in which the insurance company paid its attorney $14,720 in a losing cause, while the successful claimant's attorney was limited by the statute to a fee of $648.41 for 100.3 hours of work, or $6.48 per hour. (Inexplicably, the Florida Supreme Court refused to consider on appeal the challenge to the constitutionality of the fee.)

This is the type of outcome the bill was designed to create. This bill was supported by Senator Smith, the only Democrat Senator to do so. Even some moderate Republicans voted against it!!!

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the rights of Florida's working men and women.

The vote came on the last day of the 2009 legislative session. Because of the votes against by some moderate Republicans, two votes were needed from Democrats to gain passage. Those votes were obtained. However, within minutes of the vote, the other Senator changed her mind and expressed a desire to vote against the bill. Procedurally, this could be accomplished, however, it required Senator Smith to vote to allow a re-vote. He refused to do it. In essence, then, Senator Chris Smith was the deciding vote for the law that has eviscerated the rights of injured Florida workers.

Not surprisiningly, then Governor Charlie Crist failed to veto the bill.

Following this debacle on the Senate floor, I engaged in email communications with Senator Smith. He asked for my views on the subject of carrier-paid attorneys fees in workers' compensation cases. I told him what I thought. He indicated that he would work with his colleagues to gain passage of legislation to moderate the harsh consequences of the 2009 law. I told him that his chance to do the right thing was in 2009, that the odds of getting Republicans to back off from their major victory, one that set back the rights of injured workers more than any other in the 80+ years since a workers' compensation system was instituted in Florida, were slim to none.

My assessment has proved correct.

Periodically after our initial communications, I would ask Senator Smith how his efforts to even the playing field were going. I never received a response. Not surprisingly, nothing was accomplished in 2010 or 2011 to moderate the bill, and, to my knowledge, nothing is on the 2012 legislative agenda either.

(For what it's worth, at the time of his vote in 2009, Senator Smith was employed by a law firm which derived a good portion of its income from representing workers' compensation insurance companies, although Mr. Smith was not himself a workers' compensation practitioner. As of the posting of this blog, he remained an employee of the same law firm.)

This is the reality: as long as Republicans control the Florida Legislature, nothing will be done legislatively to change the law. If change is to come, it must come from the courts, the Florida Supreme Court, in particular. Sadly, this court seems to be cowed by the overbearing might of right-wing politics.

Continue reading "Workers' Compensation: Florida Senator Chris Smith No Friend of Injured Workers " »

Florida's Wrongful Death Act, Sections 768.16-768.26, contains the list of people who may recover damages for the death of an individual caused by the fault of another. These individuals are referenced in the Act as survivors.

Survivors are not allowed to bring separate lawsuits against the at-fault parties. Rather, their claims are brought on their behalf by a Personal Represenative or PRs appointed by the court. This is a serious responsibility and PRs are charged with doing it properly. PRs have a fiduciary duty to each survivor. Section 733.602 Florida Statutes and In re Estate of Wiggins, 729 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Among other things, the fiduciary duty requires PRs to proportion the proceeds for survivors and the estate in a reasonable and equitable manner. Continental National Bank v. Brill, 636 So.2d 782 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1994); University Medical Center v. Ziegler, 625 So.2d 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Guadalupe v. Peterson, 779 So.2d 494 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2000); and Thompson v. Godson, 825 So.2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) review denied 835 So.2d 266 (Fla. 2002).

Disputes often arise among survivors over the allocation of the proceeds recovered in a case by settlement or final judgment. Part of a PR's fiduciary duty is to see that the proceeds are allocated equitably. This is sometimes easier said than done. For instance, the PR may also be a survivor and may try to allocate a disproportionate share to himself or herself. Another example of which I recently became aware involved the PR, who was the grandmother of a young decedent, trying to allocate significantly more of the settlement proceeds to her daughter, the mother of the deceased child, than to the child's father. (The parents were divorced.)

Continue reading "Fiduciary Duty of Personal Representatives to Survivors Under Florida's Wrongful Death Act" »

Florida Statute 440.205 is supposed to protect employees from being terminated for making workers' compensation claims. Making a claim can be as simple as reporting an accident. It does not require the filing of a formal Petition for Benefits with DOAH.

Proving a claim for wrongful termination can be difficult. Florida employers are not required to modify work duties or hold jobs open while employees recover from injuries, and Florida is an "At Will" employment state, a legal principle that allows employers to terminate employees at will, for no reason at all. (Thankfully, in addition to the protections of 440.205, At Will is constrained by the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against discrimination based on age, race, and religion. Whistleblowers, individuals who report illegal activity, also are protected against At Will termination. Ironically, it is often safer for employers to fire employees for no reason at all than to fire for particular reasons.)

Employers hide behind these protections when accused of wrongful termination. In appropriate situations, they should be challenged.

An employer found to have violated 440.205, can be liable for civil damages such as lost wages and emotional distress, and subject to criminal fines as a second degree misdemeanor.

Continue reading "Protection From Wrongful Termination for Injured Florida Workers" »

Millions of passengers travel annually on cruise ships sailing from Florida ports. Thankfully, most of the voyages are uneventful in terms of negative events. However, some passengers do suffer serious personal injuries and even death through the fault of the cruise ship companies.

General Maritime Law governs cases involving cruise ship passengers, Everett v. Carnival Cruise Line, Inc., 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990), including for injuries and death occurring during shore excursions, so long as it happens during the "course of the cruise." Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004); Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc., 41 F.3d 527 (9th Cir. 1995). Common reasons for holding cruise lines liable for shore excursion accidents are fault in screening, hiring, and retention of tour operators. Fojtasek v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 613 F.Supp. 2d 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Smolnikar v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., -- F.Supp. 2d -- (S.D. Fla. 2011).

General Maritime Law holds a shipowner to a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959). With regard to dangers or risks that are not apparent and obvious, a cruise line has a duty to warn a passenger. Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 633 F.Supp. 40 (S.D. Fla. 1986) aff'd 808 F.2d 60 (11th Cir. 1986).

Here is a checklist of other important considerations for cruise ship passengers:

Statute of Limitations/Notice of Accident: The courts have given the cruise ship companies some leeway in dictating how long harmed passengers have to bring claims. The restrictions will be written into the passenger ticket/contract. Typically, the statute of limitations is set at one year, while the time period for notifying the cruise ship company of an event is 6 months. This means that notice of the harm must be given to the cruise ship company within 6 months of the event and that a lawsuit must be brought against the company within 1 year of the event. The failure of a claimant to meet either of these conditions will likely bar the claim entirely.

Continue reading "Personal Injury Liability Checklist for Cruise Ship Passengers" »

Under Federal and Florida law, the medical records of nursing home residents are available to a variety of duly authorized individuals and representives. Interested parties must know their rights to keep from being deterred by nursing homes in their quest for the records. This blog summarizes the laws that can be utilized to obtain the records.

Section 164.502(g) of Title 45, Subtitle A, Code of Federal Regulations (part of HIPAA), provides that nursing homes must treat any person who has authority to act on behalf of a deceased individual as if that person was the deceased individual.

Section 400.145(1) of the Florida Statutes declares that nursing home records shall not be considered as part of an estate and are to be made available to a spouse, guardian, surrogate, or proxy prior to administration of an estate.

Both HIPAA and 400.145(1), Fla. Stat. also require nursing homes to make records available even though the person is still alive. Section 164.502(g) of the C.F.R. provides that nursing homes are required to disclose records to any person authorized to act on behalf of an individual with regard to health care. Section 400.145(1) of the Florida Statutes requires the release of nursing home records to any spouse, guardian, surrogate or proxy for a resident who has not died.

Finally, Section 765.401 of the Florida Statutes describes the authority of a "proxy" to act on behalf of an incapacitated person. A proxy is defined as including the patient's spouse, an adult child of the patient, a parent of the patient, and even a close friend of the patient.

Continue reading "How to Obtain Medical Records of Florida Nursing Home Residents" »