Uncategorized

January 28, 2024

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Abuse of Power

Republicans control all phases of lawmaking at the state level in Florida. This has been the case since the election of Jeb Bush as governor in 1998, complementing their majorities in the Florida House and Senate.

Presently, they rule by supermajority in the Legislature, meaning they don’t have to negotiate with members of other parties to pass legislation. With the encouragement of current governor Ron DeSantis, they have been wont to stoke the flames of culture wars by enacting draconian laws such as those banning books and hurting the LGBTQ community.

While their culture war laws get the headlines, Republicans also work in quieter ways to undermine the fabric of American society. One of their favorite tricks is to weaken the rights of individuals to seek redress within the legal system.

Last legislative session they passed bills reducing the statute of limitations in personal injury cases from four years to two years and barring all personal injury claims where the injured party is more than 50% at fault, even just 51% (768.81(6)).

This latter measure may appear reasonable on its face to the uninitiated, but it is not. In years past damage awards were apportioned by percentage of fault through a legal principle known as comparative fault. For example, if a person who was 51% at fault was awarded $1,000,000 in damages by a jury, the court would reduce that person’s share of the award to $490,000. Under the legislation passed in 2023, that same person would walk away with nothing even if another party was 49% at fault.

October 6, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Duty and Proximate Cause are Essential Elements of Every Florida Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Negligence Case

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Duty and proximate cause are essential elements of every Florida personal injury and wrongful death negligence case.

DUTY: “Where a defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.” See Kaisner v Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 735 (Fla. 1989) (citing Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1983)).

PROXIMATE CAUSE: “The proximate causation element, on the other hand, is concerned with whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.” McCain v. Florida Power Corporation, 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992).

While the concept of foreseeability can be relevant to both elements, the concept “relates to duty and proximate causation in different ways and to different ends.” Id. at 502. Hence, merging the two elements into a single hybrid foreseeability analysis would be incorrect.

January 14, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Recovering for Mental and Nervous Injuries in Florida

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Florida’s liability law and workers’ compensation systems are cautious about awarding benefits for mental and nervous injuries. The underlying basis for the caution is that allowing recovery for injuries resulting from purely emotional distress would open the floodgates for fictitious or speculative claims. R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla.1995).

What has come to be known as the “Impact Rule” requires that “before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact.'” See Southern Baptist Hosp. of Fla. v. Welker, 908 So.2d 317 (Fla.2005).

The rule is applied in common law personal injury cases and in workers’ compensation cases.

Limited exceptions to the Impact Rule apply in both fields. The common law exceptions have been created by the Florida Supreme Court. See, e.g., Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. King, 557 So.2d 574 (Fla.1990) (recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress absent impact); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985) (allowing recovery where plaintiff is in the “sensory perception” of physical injuries sustained by a close family member); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla.1992) (finding rule inapplicable to actions for wrongful birth); Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla.1997) (impact rule does not preclude recovery of non-economic damages for parents of stillborn child); Gracey v. Eaker (impact rule inapplicable for breach of statutory duty of confidentiality to patient); Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla.2003) (impact rule does not preclude recovery for psychological injury due to attorney’s negligence).

In short, “[e]xceptions to the rule have been narrowly created and defined in a certain very narrow class of cases in which the foreseeability and gravity of the emotional injury involved, and lack of countervailing policy concerns, have surmounted the policy rationale undergirding application of the impact rule.” Id. at 478.

Compare these close-call cases: R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1995) (impact rule applies to negligent HIV diagnosis without physical damage), Woodard v. Jupiter Christian School, Inc., 913 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2005) (impact rule applies to outing student’s homosexuality).

December 19, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Who Pays Attorney’s Fees and Costs Assessed Against Defendant Under Proposal for Settlement?

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

In an effort to extract attorney’s fees and costs from an opponent, any party to a lawsuit may utilize Florida Statute 768.79. In cases involving substantial amounts of litigation, the award under the statute can be sizable, even in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. For this reason, the statute is also a powerful mechanism for effectuating settlements.

If the award is against an insured defendant, who pays, the defendant or the insurance company?

Florida’s Insurance Code requires policies sold in Florida to provide various types of coverage. For example, motor vehicle policies must include personal injury protection (PIP). However, the Code does not require liability insurance policies to maintain coverage for 768.79 awards.

November 20, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida’s EMA Law Neuters the Independence of Workers’ Compensation Judges

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

The resolution of disputes in Florida workers’ compensation cases often boils down to medical opinions. On this matter, the deck is stacked against injured workers (a/k/a “claimants”).

Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes lays out the obligations of employers and their insurance carriers, commonly referred to as “E/C,” to furnish medical care to injured workers. Unless an E/C fails to furnish care timely, it controls who is authorized to provide care at every stage of the case. 440.13(2)(a),(c)&(f). In other words, E/C get to pick claimants’ medical providers.

We typically see the same handful of medical providers selected by E/C in every case. The obvious reason why is because the providers make a steady and reliable income from workers’ compensation cases and know better than to bite the hand that feeds them. Especially when a call can go either way, they are skilled at expressing opinions favorable to E/C. They’re also adept at managing care so they make money, for example, with ongoing visits and physical therapy, while depriving claimants of the opportunity to recover lost wage payments. In this regard, “No functional limitations” is a favorite conclusion. See Section 21 of DWC-25. (This form is supposed to be completed by authorized doctors after every appointment.)

Making matters worse is that judges of workers’ compensation claims (“JCC) are not allowed to consider the opinions of any medical providers other than those authorized by E/C, typically the hand-selected usual suspects, each party’s IME, and an EMA doctor. Section 440.13(5)(e) provides as follows:

No medical opinion other than the opinion of a medical advisor appointed by the judge of compensation claims or the department, an independent medical examiner, or an authorized treating provider is admissible in proceedings before the judges of compensation claims.

An IME doctor is not a treater. He or she gets to examine the claimant one time and review medical records. See 440.13(1)(h)&(i) and (5). The EMA doctor is appointed by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) to resolve differences of opinion among authorized and IME doctors. Section 440.13(9), Florida Statutes.

September 1, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Considerations Concerning Cash Advance Funding of Florida Personal Injury and Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

The competition to advance money to those injured in accidents is fierce. The reason for the fierce competition is the potentially high rate of return on the investment.

Numerous companies, some large with a national presence, engage in the competition. Because their only security is the injury case itself (workers’ compensation and personal injury), which gives rise to the term “non-recourse funding advance“, the companies are not bound by Florida’s usury laws limiting interest rate charges. The rate can be multiple times over the 18% limit allowed in Florida. In fact, the interest rates are so high that the repayment amount can quickly double and triple the principal.

Advance companies are barred from foreclosing on real property or seeking repayment through wage garnishment. Their sole recourse for repayment is the case itself. If the case fails altogether or the recovery is not enough to repay the advance in full, it’s tough luck for the company. Given the precarious nature of accident cases, this is a real risk. Cases can “Go South,” so to speak, for a variety of reasons.

July 29, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // The Federalist Society Opposes Civil Jury Trials for Average Citizens

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides as follows:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. They were proposed by James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, in a speech before Congress on June 8, 1789. Here’s what he said in that speech about jury trials:

Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from the social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre—existent rights of nature.

The Federalist Society is a conservative American legal organization. Former members include current U.S. Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. The society’s logo is a silhouette of James Madison and its website displays his portrait at the bottom.

July 27, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Unrelated Works Exception to Workers’ Compensation Immunity Does Not Apply to Employees of a Different Subcontractor

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

It is the job of every injury lawyer to maximize the client’s recovery. Sometimes when a person is hurt at work, more than one remedy is available. Workers’ compensation is one remedy. Civil law is another.

Florida’s workers’ compensation laws do not allow for the recovery of noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. Workers’ compensation covers only authorized medical expenses and a defined period of lost wages. Noneconomic damages are not allowed. Civil remedy damages include economic damages such as medical expenses and lost wages as well as noneconomic damages.

Florida Statute 440.11 provides immunity to employers and their employees from civil remedy actions. There are exceptions to this rule. The exceptions are outlined in 440.11. The employer loses its immunity if it fails to maintain the workers’ compensation security required by Chapter 440 or commits an intentional tort. Section 440.11(1)(b) describes the fellow-employee exceptions:

Fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer’s business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. (Italics added.)

In Moradiellos v Gerelco Traffic Controls, Inc., 176 So.3d 329 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015), Mr. Moradiellos was killed in a construction site incident caused by the negligence of a subcontractor’s employee. Employees of construction subcontractors typically also get the 440.11 workers’ compensation immunity. The decedent was employed by the general contractor.

August 22, 2021

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Health and Disability Insurance Reimbursement Rights in Florida Personal Injury Cases

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

It is common for health and disability (lost wages) insurance companies to pay benefits to their insureds who have been injured through the negligence of others. Most of the insurance policies contain language granting the insurance company a right of reimbursement for the money it has paid out from the proceeds recovered by the insured in the personal injury case for the same losses.

How much must be repaid depends on policy language and who is paying the settlement or judgment in the personal injury case.

Many of the insurance policies provide that the carrier has the right to be reimbursed in full up to the amount recovered in the liability case before the insured and the insured’s attorney receive penny one. When the compensation is paid by a tortfeasor, who is the person or entity responsible for causing the harm, reimbursement is determined by the formula set forth in section 768.76(4), Florida Statutes. The statutory formula applies even where the insurance policy calls for full reimbursement to the carrier first. In Ingenix v. Ham, 35 So.3d 949 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010), Gerald Ham’s health insurer, UnitedHealthcare, paid almost all of Ham’s medical bills relating to a medical procedure that ultimately resulted in his death. After settling with the medical providers (i.e., tortfeasors) in a medical malpractice lawsuit, Ham’s estate contended that it was only required to reimburse UnitedHealthcare a reduced amount according to the formula set out in section 768.76(4), Florida Statutes (2008). UnitedHealthcare took the position that it was entitled to full reimbursement in accordance with the language of its policy. The court held that section 768.76(4) controlled, limiting UnitedHealthcare’s reimbursement to the formula under section 768.76(4).

June 13, 2021

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Two-Tiered Analysis Required Under F.S. 112.18(1) a/k/a the “Firefighter’s Presumption” or the “Heart-Lung” Statute When Disabling Condition Results From a Combination of an Underlying Condition With a “Triggering Event.”

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

In City of Jacksonville v. Ratliff, 217 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 1st DCE 2017), a firefighter with a pre-existing history of diabetes, high cholesterol, prior history of smoking, and a family history of early onset CAD – blocked arteries (CAD – coronary artery disease) caused by the build-up of plaque – among other pre-existing factors, suffered a myocardial infarction (another term for heart attack) after a stressful meeting at work. The myocardial infarction resulted from the rupture of the plaque.

The Employer/Carrier (E/C) presented uncontroverted evidence that the CAD was caused by preexisting factors unrelated to work. Nevertheless, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarded compensation and related medical treatment for the myocardial infarction under the “heart-lung” statute, section 112.18, Florida Statutes. E/C appealed. The First DCA affirmed the JCC’s decision.

The Claimant asserted compensability of the heart condition on a “presumption only” basis; or in other words, the Claimant had no medical evidence of occupational causation and relied solely on the presumption of the “heart-lung” statute. To rebut the presumption, E/C faced only the threshold rebuttal burden of presenting competent evidence, rather than clear and convincing evidence, that the disease was not work related. This required E/C to provide evidence that a single factor, or multiple factors, wholly combined, causing the CAD were non-industrial in nature. Punsky v. Clay Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 18 So.3d 577 at 583 (Fla. 1st DCA) (on rehearing en banc); Fuller v. Okaloosa Corr. Inst., 22 So.3d 803, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

E/C met its burden. Even still, it was held responsible for Claimant’s heart attack.