Articles Posted in Uncategorized

33 U.S.C.A. 907 provides that employers are responsible for furnishing medical care to LHW for so long as the nature of the injuries and process of recovery may require. This sounds good for injured workers, but doesn’t always work out that way.

The key to the successful medical outcome for any injured longshore and harbor worker is the quaility of care provided. Sadly, successful recovery is not always an employer’s primary concern. Often, limiting claim costs is the foremost concern. When this is so, the quality of medical care may be compromised.

Under the LHWCA, injured workers are entitled to medical care and, in most cases, some wage loss benefits. The extent of those wage loss benefits is largely determined by the medical opinions given by the treating doctor(s).

Doctors closely aligned with employers and their insurance carriers have a tendency or inclination to give opinions favorable to the employers and carriers. When in doubt, their decisions favor employers and carriers.

Our law firm does not approve of this mentality. We believe that medical providers should act with the patient’s best interest in mind, rather than the employer/carrier’s.
Continue reading

The outcome of the 2010 Florida Governor’s race will have a profound impact on the rights of individuals to pursue remedies against big business. Alex Sink will preserve those rights. Rick Scott, of Medicare fraud fame, will work to curtail them.

When Jeb Bush became Florida’s Governor, in 1998, Florida politics took a radical (not to be confused with conservative) turn to the right. With Florida’s House and Senate chambers controlled by Republicans, draconian laws designed to limit the ability of individuals from obtaining relief through the court system were passed with little resistance. (It was not unusual for these laws to gain passage with little to no Democratic support.) This was the Golden-Period in Florida for big business, the dark days for fairness and justice.

After 8 years of Jeb Bush, Floridian’s elected Charlie Crist as its governor, in 2006. He proved to be Jeb-light. Beholden to the radical-right, but kinder than his predecessor, Governor Crist encouraged and signed into law many anti-consumer, anti-individual rights laws, but also vetoed some egregious bills that Jeb Bush would have gladly approved. Compared to Jeb Bush, Crist respected the the rights of individuals.

Emboldened by high approval ratings, when Republican Mel Martinez retired from the U.S. Senate, Governor Crist decided to run for the office. This opened the door to career politician Bill McCollum and political neophyte Rick Scott to seek the Republican nomination as his replacement.

In the year of the Tea Party, Rick Scott pulled off a mild upset in the primary election by defeating McCollum. On the Democratic side, Alex Sink handily won her party’s nomination. Hence, the battle lines are drawn: Sink/Individuals v. Scott/Big Business.

Who Floridians elect as their next Governor will determine the type of state Florida will be for generations to come. Will Florida be a state that values and respects the rights of individuals above all else, as in “of the people, by the people, and for the people” (The Gettysburg Address), or will it be a state that places profits over people?

Republicans remain firmly in control of both chambers of the The Florida Legislature. As a group, they are more radically-right than the body in power during Jeb Bush’s rule, more determined than ever to prevent big business from being accountable to individuals. If Rick Scott is elected, Florida’s legislature will be able to operate without restraint. Every draconian bill passed by the legislature will be rubber-stamped into law by a Governor Scott. Not so a Governor Sink.

One example of the sharp differences between the candidates concerns the duty owed by insurance companies to their policyholders. Candidate Sink believes that insurance companies have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their policyholders. This means that insurance companies must act in good faith to pay legitimate claims in a timely manner. This principle is supported by well-established Florida law. When an insurance company violates the principle, hence, acts in bad faith, it faces serious consequences. These consequences have done more than anything else to keep the insurance industry in line. Because Florida’s bad faith laws cut into insurance company profits, Rick Scott wants to eliminate them. (Do not believe the propaganda that payments made by insurance companies for acting in bad faith will be passed on to consumers. Bad faith payments are not allowed to be taken into consideration when determining rate premiums.)

Consider this: Even with strong bad faith laws, it is always a battle to resolve claims fairly with insurance companies. Imagine how much more difficult it will become if the bad faith hammer is taken away from the people. It is not a pretty picture.

Alex Sink, a successful yet compassionate businesswoman, will protect the rights of individuals by proposing positive and helpful legislation, while vetoing negative legislation which is surely to come from our Florida Legislature.

Please click here – ALEX SINK – to learn more about her.

(If Rick Scott’s policies aren’t enough to scare you, consider this segment: Rick Scott and the 5th Amendment.)
Continue reading

In Patricia Farley v. Chase Bank, U.S.A, N.A., No. 4D09-651 (opinion published on June 9, 2010) (not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing), the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, sent a cautionary message to those who fail to object within a reasonable period of time to incorrect account statements.

In every civil legal case, the initial burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to present a prima facie case. In a lawsuit brought to collect a debt, this means that the Plaintiff/Creditor must come forward initially with probative evidence of the correct amount of the debt and the liability of the debtor. Without doing so, the Plaintiff/Creditor’s case will fail.

In the Farley case, before the lawsuit was filed Chase Bank had rendered an account statement to Ms. Farley. When Ms. Farley failed to pay or challenge the correctness of the statement, she was sued by the bank.

At the trial court level, Chase Bank came forward with evidence that Ms. Farley had received the account statement and failed to challenge its correctness. Ms. Farley insisted that Chase Bank must prove its case by providing an itemized copy of the account sued upon. The trial court disagreed with Ms. Farley, concluding instead that the bank had made a prima facie case by presenting evidence that Ms. Farley had failed to challenge the correctness of the pre-suit account statement. Ms. Farley’s appeal of the trial court’s decision was rejected by the 4th DCA.
Continue reading

When the economy lags, like now, so do the amount of reported job-related accidents and workers’ compensation claims filed. I speak from the experience of handling claimants’ workers’ compensation cases for the past 23 years.

Employees fear being fired for having an accident on the job. In my experience, the fear is well founded. Accordingly, when jobs are scarce, employees are more hesitant to report accidents and injuries as compared to when jobs are plentiful.

In the mid- to late-1990s, the Clinton years, when the economy was booming and the next job was right around the corner, employees had little fear of reporting an injury, like a tweaked back – which could be a herniated disc – from heavy lifting or a twisted knee – which could be a meniscus tear or worse – from falling from a ladder. If necessary, employees hired lawyers to assert their rights under the law.

This is not so anymore. Not even close. I have noticed a decided decline in workers’ compensation cases over the past 4-5 years, especially the last 2-3 years. (This is not surprising given that, since December, 2007, the U.S. economy has shed more than 8 million jobs.)

As a result, many employees are failing to report and pursue benefits for serious injuries. The long term consequences of this can be profound. Serious injuries require medical attention and rest. Working through a serious injury is not always the answer. Injuries that fail to heal properly will only worsen over time, resulting in the need for greater medical care and the inability to maintain gainful employment in the future.

This is one of many negative consequences of a poor economy. Let’s hope that things improve soon.
Continue reading

Hardworking individuals today are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their expenses. Mortgage foreclosures, credit card defaults, and vehicle repossessions are reaching record proportions. With the rise in defaults come the inevitable collection efforts by creditors and debt collection agencies. In some cases, the collection efforts cause more pain than the default itself. Fortunately for Florida residents, there is a body of law designed to combat overzealous creditors and bill collectors. Unfortunately, the law, located in Chapter 559 of the Florida Statutes and referred to as the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, is little-known and greatly underutilized.

Collection efforts are allowed and take many forms, from lawsuits, dunning notices, phone calls, to reporting the debt to credit reporting agencies. Thankfully, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act prohibits some activities and provides a remedy for breaches. Examples of proscribed activities include using or threatening violence; communicating or threatening to communicate with a debtor’s employer prior to obtaining final judgment; communicating with such frequency as to constitute harassment; using profane or vulgar language in a communication; simulating in any manner a law enforcement officer or a representative of any governmental agency; and communicating with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. It is also unlawful to claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when the collector knows that the debt is not legitimate or assert the existence of some other legal right when such collector knows that the right does not exist. This particular violation is quite common and typically arises in the context of a debt that once existed but was resolved.
Continue reading