Florida Injury Attorney Blawg

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" »

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay employees overtime pay, at a rate of time and a half, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. See Section 207 of the Act.

To calculate the amount of compensation an employee is owed under the FLSA, the overtime rate (OT rate) must be determined.

The first step in this equation is establishing the "regular rate of pay," the hourly rate. If the employee has not received employer-furnished fringe benefits, such as health insurance and housing, the "regular rate of pay" is the hourly rate, and the OT rate is 1/2 of the hourly rate. For example, if the "regular rate of pay" is $10.00/hour, the overtime rate is $5.00.

Where fringe benefits have been provided, their value must be included in the calculation. In the case of health insurance, the fringe benefit value determination is relatively simple to make, with the employer's share of the premium payment being the actual "value" of the fringe benefit. Where the employer is not making an easily identifiable payment, such as in the case of self-administered medical programs provided by some big emloyers, or where housing is provided by the employer, determining the value of the benefit is not as simple. Not infrequently, the parties will fight over the value of fringe benefits. (Caveat: the employer may try to argue that the fringe-benefit is a form of payment for overtime wages, rather than a benefit which increases the "regular rate of pay." Paycheck stubs and tax records, among other evidence, must be considered to resolve this dispute.)

Where fringe benefits are part of the calculation, determining the OT Rate is a 3-step process:

Step 1 - Regular Weekly Pay: Hourly rate of pay times (x) hours worked per week plus (+) value of fringe benefit(s). (Example: $10/hr x 62 hours + $50 (weekly insurance premium.))

Step 2 - Regular Rate of Pay: Regular Pay divided (/) by hours per week.

Step 3 - OT Rate: Equals 1/2 of Regular Rate of Pay.

Continue reading "Determining Compensation Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)" »

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay employees overtime pay, at a rate of time and a half, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. See Section 207 of the Act. However, the FLSA contains many exemptions, including for "administrative" employees, perhaps the most common exemption, and "outside" salespeople.

Novartis is a drug manufacturer. It sells its drugs to wholesalers, who sell to pharmacies, who sell to patients who are prescribed the drugs by their doctors. Novartis benefits from doctors prescribing its drugs.

Novartis employs a small army of individuals who do not sell the drugs directly to the doctors but instead make regular calls on doctors to encourage them to prescribe Novartis drugs to their patients. 2500 of these individuals brought a class action against Novartis for FLSA overtime wages. Novartis argued that they were exempt as outside salespeople and administrative employees. The Plaintiffs countered by arguing that they do not make sales or obtain orders, and thus are not salespeople, and do not exercise discretion and independent judgment, two of the critical indicia for the "administrative" employee exemption.

Continue reading "South Florida Attorney Blog re FLSA: Novartis Pharmaceutical Employees Entitled to Overtime Pay" »

Permanent Total Disability (PTD) (440.15(1)) is the most valuable wage loss benefit available under Florida's workers' compensation system. Unlike Temporary Partial Disability (TPD) (440.15(4)) and Temporary Total Disability (TTD) (440.15(2)), monetary benefits that are available for only a short period of time, PTD can last for years and includes an annual supplemental increase equal to 3 percent of her or his weekly compensation rate.

The PTD standard has changed numerous times over the years. Until 1996, the standard was to meet a scheduled catastrophic injury, like total blindness or loss of limbs, or prove the inability to perform at least light duty work uninterruptedly on a full-time basis. In 1996, the light duty standard was replaced by the standard required to qualify for Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits, which the Florida Legislature believed was more demanding. In 2002, thanks to Governor Jeb Bush, the SSD standard was replaced by an even more stringent standard. Injured workers would be required to prove that they could not perform at least sedentary duty work on a part-time basis within a 50 mile radius of their homes. This standard prevented all but the most catastrophically injured workers from qualifying for PTD.

Because this standard proved so onerous... and unfair, the Florida Legislature was persuaded to eliminate the part-time element from the PTD requirement in its 2006 version of 440.15.

Pre-1996, one of the ways claimants proved entitlement to PTD benefits was by performing an exhaustive but unsuccessful job search. Because of the many variations in the standard since then, many workers' compensation practitioners believed that this method no longer applied and abandoned it as a way of proving entitlement to PTD.

Thankfully, in Blake v. Merck & Co., 43 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) the assumption was proven wrong. The Blake court set forth three alternative methods by which a claimant may prove entitlement to PTD benefits: by presenting evidence of (1) permanent medical incapacity to engage in at least sedentary employment, within a 50-mile radius of the employee's residence, due to physical limitation; (2) permanent work-related physical restrictions coupled with an exhaustive but unsuccessful job search; or (3) permanent work-related physical restrictions that, while not alone totally disabling, preclude Claimant from engaging in at least sedentary employment when combined with vocational factors.

Continue reading "Florida Workers' Compensation - Shifting Permanent Total Disability (PTD) Standard" »

For too long, Florida employers and their workers' compensation insurance carriers have been able to accuse employees of insurance fraud without consequence if proven wrong. No longer.

Until the recent decision in Carrillo v. Case Engineering Inc./Claims Center, (Fla. 1st DCA 2-11-2011), employers and their insurance carriers were free to assert the so-called "fraud defense" without regard for any negative consequences. Accordingly, with nothing to lose and much to gain, namely, claimants losing the right to all benefits, combined with an absurdly low standard of proof, carriers have used the defense indiscriminately for many years. In far too many cases, the calculation has been simply to throw the defense on the wall and hope that it sticks. If nothing else, it was a way of leveraging injured workers to settle their cases for less than full value.

Carrillo has changed the no risk element of the defense.

One of the few ways in which injured workers (claimants) can be awarded attorneys fees against employers and their insurance carriers, a valuable benefit, is if "a carrier or employer denies that an accident occurred... and the claimant prevails on the issue of compensability." Florida Statute section 440.34(3)(c).

Continue reading "Finally, Insurance Carriers Face Consequences for Pleading Fraud in Florida Workers' Compensation Cases" »

Florida Statute Section 440.09(4)(a) provides that an employee shall not be entitled to workers' compensation benefits if the employee has intentionally or knowingly engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.15 for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits.

Knowingly presenting false ID to obtain employment is an act described in s. 440.15 as being prohibited. Will performing such an act prevent an employee injured on the job from receiving workers' compensation benefits?

In Matrix Employee Leasing and FCIC/First Commercial v. Hernandez, 975 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), Mr. Hernandez obtained employment by presenting an invalid social security card. The employer did not learn that the card was invalid until the day Mr. Hernandez was hurt on the job.

Relying on 440.15 and 440.09, the Employer/Carrier denied benefits. The claimant countered that because the invalid ID was used to obtain employment rather than secure workers' compensation benefits, benefits should not be denied. The JCC [Judge of Compensation Claims] agreed, ordering the E/C to pay workers' compensation benefits. The E/C appealed the JCC's order.

Continue reading "Florida Workers' Compensation - Use of False Social Security Card to Obtain Employment" »

Many people mistakenly believe that maintenance and unearned wages for injured seamen are the same benefit. They are not.

Seamen injured while working on the high seas are entitled to no-fault benefits, in other words, benefits regardless of why the accident happened. Among those benefits are Maintenance & Cure, and unearned wages.

Maintenance is to compensate the seaman for the value of quarters and meals furnished aboard the vessel. The benefit commences on the date the seaman leaves the ship, not the date of the injury, and ends in most instances when the seaman has reached maximum medical cure.

In contrast, unearned wages are the equivalent of wages and are due just as a normal paycheck comes due. The benefit is payable to the end of the mutually-agreed period of the voyage or until the seaman becomes fit for duty. The big issue often is what defines the voyage. The amount can include bonuses, tips, accumulated shore leave, "comp time," and similar employment benefits.

The issues involved in maritime personal injury cases are complex. Injured seamen should consult with experienced lawyers to learn their rights.

Contact our office today to arrange a free, confidential consultation to discuss your case.

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.

Not surprisingly, in Jennifer Kauffman v. Community Inclusions, Inc./Guarantee Insurance Company, filed on March 23, 2011, the Florida First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion finding constitutional a Florida law, Statute 440.34, that is designed to limit the ability of injured workers to obtain workers' compensation benefits.

The Jennifer Kauffman appeal arose out of a lower court order awarding Ms. Kauffman's attorney a fee in the amount of $648.41. The employer/carrier were ordered to pay the fee because they had lost at the trial level in their effort to deny workers' compensation benefits to Ms. Kauffman, who was injured on the job. Her attorney spent 100.3 hours in the successful prosecution of the claim, meaning that he was awarded $6.48 per hour. (Although JCC E. Douglas Spangler, Jr. concluded in his appealed court order that the fee was patently unreasonable, he felt constrained by the statute to award the amount he did. In his opinion, based on evidence presented at the fee hearing, a reasonable fee would have been $25,075. Judge Spangler was also dismayed that the employer/carrier were able to pay their own defense attorney $14,720 in a losing effort.)

Continue reading "Florida 1st DCA Approves Tilted Playing Field in Workers' Compensation Cases" »

For more than twenty years, the inclination of the Florida Legislature has been to create laws that tilt the playing field in favor of employers and their insurance carriers (E/C) in disputes involving injured workers. As a result, very few aspects of today's workers' compensation system stand behind injured workers.

One significant example of legislation designed to limit the ability of injured workers to obtain workers' compensation benefits is Section 440.09(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes. This section, commonly referred to as the Major Contributing Cause (MCC) requirement, places on injured workers the burden of proving that the industrial accident is more than 50% responsible for causing the injury. An injured worker who fails to meet this burden will be denied medical care and lost wage benefits from the employer.

The MCC is used as a defense in many cases. The E/C try to blame 50% or more of a claimant's injury on a pre-existing condition. For older workers and those with similar prior complaints, the defense can be difficult to overcome. Sadly, many an injured worker has been left without any workers' compensation benefits because of the MCC.

Fortunately, the First District Court of Appeal has carved out an important exception to the MCC doctrine. In Pearson v. Paradise Ford, 951 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), the court held that an employee need not meet the rigorous MCC requirements when her or his pre-existing condition is occupationally related.

Continue reading "Exception to the Major Contributing Cause (MCC) Doctrine - Florida Workers' Compensation" »

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes standards for minimum wages, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor. Although the Act affects more than 130 million workers, some employers and employees are exempt.

The Act applies to enterprises with employees who engage in interstate commerce, produce goods for interstate commerce, or handle, sell, or work on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for interstate commerce. Case law has created a liberal interpretation of these elements in order to protect employees. In addition, for the Act to apply, the enterprise must have not less than $500,000 in annual dollar volume business.

Some employees who work for covered employers, may nevertheless be exempt from both the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Act based on the work they perform. At the top of the list is the exemption for executive, administrative, and professional employees. These individuals are typically paid a set salary without regard to the number of hours spent on the job in any given workweek. (This "exemption" has resulted in a tremendous amount of court litigation. Employers often seek to avoid the Act's overtime requirements by classifying employees as executives (e.g., "manager"), without matching the pay and job responsibilities with the title. To avoid inequity, the courts look to substance rather than rely on mere words.)

Examples of other employees exempt from both the minimum wage and overtime requirements include:

• Casual babysitters


• Companions for the elderly


• Employees engaged in newspaper delivery


• Federal criminal investigators


• Seamen employed on foreign vessels


• Switchboard operators

Continue reading "Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Exemptions" »

At the urging of Governor Jeb Bush, Florida's Republican-controlled legislature in 2002 passed a workers' compensation bill designed to limit carrier-paid attorney's fees to claimants' attorneys. The measure was challenged in the courts by claimants (injured workers), who argued that it was unconstitutional (denied access to courts & equal protection) and that it should be interpreted to allow for "reasonable" attorney's fees.

Five years after the bill's effective date, the Florida Supreme Court, in Murray v. Mariner Health and Ace USA, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008), held that the statute provided for reasonable attorney's fees. The court did not rule on the constitutional issues.

In a clear rebuke to the Florida Supreme Court, in it's next legislative session, which began on March 1, 2009, less than seven months after the Murray decision, the still-again Republican-controlled legislature took another shot at limiting fees. What it did was remove the word "reasonable" from Florida Statute 440.34. The Legislature's goal was to make it difficult for injured workers to obtain adequate legal representation by denying their attorneys reasonable attorney's fees.

In the Murray case, Ms. Murray was successful at the trial level in convincing a judge of workers' compensation claims (JCC) that her injuries were sustained in a work-related accident. (The employer/carrier (e/c) had denied her injuries.) In a subsequent attorney's fee hearing, the JCC found that claimant's counsel expended eighty hours of reasonable and necessary time on the case. However, the JCC, although concluding in his written order that $16,000 was a reasonable fee, felt constrained by the statute and awarded only $684.84, or an hourly rate of $8.11. According to the JCC, this amount was "manifestly unfair." (Note: the e/c in this case paid their attorney $16,050 (135 hours at $125 an hour) in the unsuccessful effort to resist paying benefits.) It was this order that was appealed and eventually made its way to the Florida Supreme Court. As a result of the decision, Ms. Murray's attorney was awared $16,000 for his efforts at the trial level.

Continue reading "Florida Workers' Compensation Attorney's Fees - Round II (Emma Murray; Jennifer Kauffman)" »

One of the principal reasons for business being conducted through a corporation, is for the officers, directors, managers, and shareholders of the corporation to be shielded from personal liability for the company's failures and mistakes. Absent fraud or comingling, the so-called corporate shield is supposed to protect them from personal liability. This holds true for most business deals gone sour and accidents caused by corporate negligence such as by defective products.

To the surprise of many, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has a vehicle for piercing the corporate shield.

Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938 to create and maintain minimum standards of living for workers in industries engaged in interstate commerce. Section 202. Congress attempted to secure this goal, in part, by enacting a prohibition which generally mandated that individuals who work more than 40 hours in a week receive an overtime premium. In essence, the Act provides for the payment of overtime wages calculated at X-1/2 for all hours worked over 40 in a week.

Some employers try to skirt the law through creating a variety of false arrangements, however, the majority of those in violation only do so through innocent ignorance or misunderstanding. In piercing the corporate veil, the FLSA does not draw a distinction between intentional acts and innocent mistakes.

Continue reading "Personal Liability of Managers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)" »

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), enacted in 1938, was Congress's effort to create and maintain minimum standards of living for workers in industries engaged in interstate commerce. Congress attempted to secure this goal, in part, by enacting a prohibition which generally mandated that individuals who work more than 40 hours in a week receive an overtime premium. However, until 2005, drivers, drivers' helpers, loaders and mechanics of vehicles weighing 10,000 lbs. or less who performed tasks that affected the safety of vehicles operating in interstate commerce were exempted from the maximum hours provisions of the Act, set forth specifically in 29 U.S.C. Section 207. This changed on August 10, 2005, when the exemption was removed by the enactment on August 10, 2005, of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

The FLSA is a complicated set of laws laden with numerous exemptions and qualifications. Employers and employees should consult with a legal expert well-versed in handling FLSA cases to address the many aspects of the Act.

Continue reading "FLSA/Overtime Protection for Light Weight Truck Drivers" »

The question often arises in Florida as to whether undocumented workers can be compensated for lost wages (past and future) in personal injury and workers' compensation cases. With few exceptions, the answer appears to be No.

Although the damages available in workers' compensation and personal injury cases may differ, both offer elements of awards for lost wages. Proving entitlement requires showing that the lost wages are related to the injuries. However, the employer (wc) and defendant (pi) may nullify the proof by establishing that the claimant is prohibited from working in the United States due to immigration issues. In other words, an immigrant who is not authorized to work in the United States, cannot be compensated under Florida law for lost income resulting from an accident.

The two primary exceptions in workers' compensation cases are (1) the employee is totally, as opposed to partially, unable to work because of his injuries, and (2) the employer knew or should have known of the employee's status as an unauthorized alien prior to the disabling accident. (The law of Florida does not impose on an employer the burden of verifying forged or borrowed green cards - Florida Statute 448.09 - nor is there any such federal requirement.)

Continue reading "Wage/Income Loss Claims for "Illegal Immigrants"/Undocumented Workers in Florida Personal Injury and Workers' Compensation Cases" »

Florida's workers' compensation system contains many different types of wage loss benefits. Each is unique in scope and character. They are:

• Temporary total disability (TTD; 440.15(2)): Unable to work prior to maximum medical improvement (MMI)


• Temporary partial disability (TPD; 440.15(4)): Able to work with restrictions


• Impairment benefits (IB): Based on medical impairment rating upon reaching MMI


• Permanent Total Disability (PTD; 440.15(1)): Unable to perform substantial gainful employment after reaching MMI. (See blog.)


• Retraining: While being retrained in a certified program. (440.491) (See blog.)

• Unemployment Compensation: Terminated from employment without cause


• Social Security Disability (SSD): Similar to workers' compensation PTD


• Supplemental Security Income (SSI): Need-based, depends on income and assets

Continue reading "Florida Workers' Compensation Lost Wages Benefits" »