Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

scales-of-justice-300x203Workers’ compensation claimants have the burden of showing that the workplace accident is the major contributing cause of an injury. Section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes (2017). Major contributing cause, or MCC, means the cause which is more than 50 percent responsible for the injury as compared to all other causes combined for which treatment or benefits are sought. Sec. 440.09(1).

This is not an issue in every case. Many injuries are accepted by the Employer/Carrier (E/C) without dispute. Doing so prevents the E/C from later denying compensability of the accepted injuries. However, if the E/C is uncertain of its obligation to provide benefits, it may choose to provide benefits under a reservation of rights pursuant to section 440.20(4), Florida Statutes (2017).

Unlike the unconditional acceptance, this section affords E/C the option of denying compensability within 120 days after the initial provision of compensation or benefits. If, however, the E/C fails to deny compensability of an injury within 120 days after the initial provision of benefits for an injury, it waives the right to deny compensability of this injury “unless the carrier can establish material facts relevant to the issue of compensability that it could not have discovered through reasonable investigation within the 120-day period.” § 440.20(4), Fla. Stat. (2017). See, e.g., McIntosh v. CVS Pharmacy, 135 So. 3d 1157, 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Bynum Transp., Inc. v. Snyder, 765 So. 2d 752, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also § 440.192(8), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“A carrier that does not deny compensability in accordance with s. 440.20(4) is deemed to have accepted the employee’s injuries as compensable, unless it can establish material facts relevant to the issue of compensability that could not have been discovered . . .”)

Continue reading

accident-1307665-162x300Florida law grants workers’ compensation insurance companies the exclusive authority to control the selection of the injured worker’s treating medical providers. Section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes (2017). This leads to carriers repeatedly selecting providers with a track record of siding with them.

Thankfully, the authority is not unbridled. One of the main restrictions concerns the proximity of the medical provider to the claimant’s community of residence. In Wright v. Golf Drive Residence, Inc., 412 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the JCC‘s decision requiring the claimant to travel from her home in Naples to Fort Myers for further treatment was reversed on appeal. The court reasoned that it was unreasonable for the deputy to require her to travel outside her home community in Naples where adequate treatment is available.* A similar result was reached in Hall’s Camp, Inc. v. Decker, 394 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), where the trial court was affirmed for ordering the carrier to pay for medical care provided by the only specialist in the claimant’s area. The appellate court held that it would be unreasonable for the carrier to have required the claimant to travel outside of her local Arkansas community for treatment by another orthopedic surgeon.

Continue reading

pinoccioFlorida’s experience with crafting workers’ compensation legislation is a case study in the danger of accepting without challenge the statements of insurance industry lobbyists. One after the other during Florida’s last legislative session (March – May, 2017), insurance industry lobbyists stood before committees of elected officials and made baseless comments for the simple purpose of  increasing insurance company profits, without regard for the health and welfare of hard working men and women and their families. None testified under oath so they were free to pull crap from their asses to feed to legislators, which they did in abundance. Had they been required to take an oath, not a one of them would have said a word.

The following article debunks the comments of every insurance industry shill who tried to influence legislation.

********************************************

Workers’ Comp Drops Off The Legislative Map

Oct 6, 2017

Just a year after dire predictions that the state’s economy was in peril due to rising insurance costs, Florida businesses could see an average 9.3 percent reduction in workers’ compensation premiums in the coming year under a rate filing Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier will consider later this month.

While it may be good news for those who pay the premiums, the proposed reduction filed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance presents a hurdle for business lobbyists and special interests who have warned lawmakers for more than a year that a pair of 2016 Florida Supreme Court rulings would drive workers’ compensation rates so high that employers would be forced to slash jobs.

Bill Herrle, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business in Florida, acknowledged that after traveling the state in the summer of 2016 discussing the issue and spending the majority of the 2017 session unsuccessfully pushing a workers’ compensation bill, it’s not a priority this year.

Enthusiasm to tackle the complicated issue has waned since the proposed 9.3 percent reduction was filed in August, he said.

“We still believe the rates are going to go up, but when rates are going down, we don’t have wind in our sails,” Herrle said.

House Commerce Chairman Jim Boyd, R-Bradenton, worries about attorney involvement in the workers’ compensation insurance system and has asked members of his committee to receive an update during a meeting next week in Tallahassee.

Nevertheless, Boyd, an insurance agent, acknowledged that there isn’t a need for legislative action if Altmaier approves lower workers’ compensation rates for the coming year.

“I’m not sure doing anything this year would be appropriate or prudent,” Boyd said.

Workers’ compensation is a no-fault system meant to protect workers and employers. It is supposed to provide workers who are injured on the job access to medical benefits they need to be made whole. Those who are injured for at least eight days also are entitled to indemnity benefits, or lost wages. In exchange for providing those benefits, employers generally cannot be sued in court for causing injuries.

While the system is supposed to be self-executing, injured workers hire attorneys when there are disputes over the amounts of benefits they should receive.

Continue reading

chronic-pain-spots-painful-joints-in-the-body-300x203Wikipedia defines a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) as “a set of tests, practices and observations that are combined to determine the ability of the evaluated person to function in a variety of circumstances, most often employment, in an objective manner. Physicians change diagnoses based on FCEs.”

I, for one, consider FCEs junk science. At the very least, they must be handled with care. Most FCE administrators are not sufficiently grounded in science, case law and forensic issues. Examples may include misquoting standard journal articles and texts, making false statements, providing “junk science” opinions, including predicted functional capacity over prolonged periods projected into the future based on flimsy short-term testing, and interpretation, and deliberately omitting important facts and knowledge. Nevertheless, FCEs are a fairly common component within Florida’s workers’ compensation system.

Chapter 440 is the section of the Florida Statutes containing the workers’ compensation system’s statutory laws. Surprisingly, Chapter 440 contains no reference to FCEs. This means that a judge of compensation claims does not have authority to compel a claimant’s attendance at an FCE. Caution is counseled here: While a claimant cannot be compelled to attend, under some circumstances the refusal to attend may result in the loss of benefits.

Continue reading

Department-Brochure-WC-1-242x300Florida’s workers’ compensation statute of limitations is outlined in section 440.19, Florida Statues (2017). The statute is particular with regard to the requirements workers’ compensation insurance carriers must satisfy to prevail on the SOL defense. This blog points out an approach not addressed in the statute which is used by carriers to bar claims through the SOL defense.

Section 440.19 appears to condition its application on compliance with section 440.185, Florida Statutes. Section 440.185 subsection (3) provides as follows:

Within 3 days after the employer or the employee informs the carrier of an injury the carrier shall mail to the injured worker an informational brochure (italics added) approved by the department which sets forth in clear and understandable language an explanation of the rights, benefits, procedures for obtaining benefits and assistance, criminal penalties, and obligations of injured workers and their employers under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law.

One could conclude from reading sections 440.19 and 440.185, that a carrier’s failure to mail the informational brochure would absolutely prevent the SOL defense. Such is not the case. (Here is a link to the approved brochure: Florida Department of Insurance. Page one addresses the workers’ compensation statute of limitations.)

Continue reading

scales-of-justice-300x203There is great strength in numbers. You realize that as an advocate for injured workers and a strong defender of civil justice in our state. This is the primary reason why the Florida Workers’ Advocates and the Florida Justice Association have joined forces to stand up for working people at the State Capitol and throughout Florida in a unified manner.

Whether the focus is on the manner in which rates are established or the denial of medical treatment and related benefits for injured workers, the overwhelming theme is that the workers’ compensation system has been skewed in favor of big business and the insurance industry for far too long. We have all represented individuals who have been harmed by this fractured system.

Continue reading

Notes-300x215The parties to a Florida workers’ compensation case have the unique right to conduct discovery depositions even in the absence of a pending claim, which is brought by filing a Petition for Benefits.

The right is granted under Florida Statute 440.30 and is limited to cases where the Claimant is represented by an attorney. (This means that the Employer and Carrier, known collectively as “E/C”, cannot employ the device against an unrepresented Claimant.) Significantly, “[I]f no claim has been filed, then the carrier or employer taking the deposition shall pay the claimant’s attorney a reasonable attorney’s fee for attending said deposition.”

Because both parties may conference separately with authorized medical providers — Section 440.13(4)(c) Florida Statutes grants E/C the right — it is rare for a medical provider to be deposed in the absence of a pending Petition for Benefits. From E/C’s perspective, it can learn what it needs by talking to the doctor privately without having to pay the Claimant’s attorney to attend a deposition.

Continue reading

scales of justiceFollowing the Florida Supreme Court’s April, 2016 decision in Castellanos v. Next Door Company, Florida’s workers’ compensation insurance industry quickly mobilized in an effort to obtain approval of a rate increase from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. It claimed that a substantial premium rate hike was needed to handle the expected increase in claim costs — in particular, fees paid to claimants’ attorneys — resulting from the decision.

Insurance industry representatives hired National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), a private company authorized to request rate changes, to present its case to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR), the regulatory agency responsible for setting insurance rates. OIR ultimately approved a 14.5% rate hike. Problem is, opponents were prevented from fully engaging  in the regulatory process.

Continue reading

DisabledU.S. President Theodore Roosevelt famously said, Speak softly and carry a big stick.” The meaning of the proverb is that, if necessary, blunt force will be used to compel compliance with reasonable behavior. It works.

In Castellanos v. Next Door Company, the Florida Supreme Court gave injured workers a big stick. It is Section 440.34(3) Florida Statutes.

The Castellanos version of 440.34(3) gives employers and their workers’ compensation insurance companies thirty days (30), a safe harbor period, to provide requested benefits without risking having to pay the injured worker’s attorney’s fees. The risk can be sizeable. Hourly attorney fee rates range from $200 to $400 and complex cases can involve hundreds of hours of legal work.

This threat, the big stick, is usually effective in getting carriers to furnish needed benefits without a fight. Since the value of benefits at stake is often greater than the exposure for attorney’s fees, it makes practical sense for carriers to be cooperative. In the days when injured workers did not have the big stick, it was the policy and procedure of most insurance companies to summarily deny benefits since the adverse consequences of being proven wrong were de minimis.

Continue reading

worker2Shame on the Miami Herald!

On September 30, 2016 (print) and October 4, 2016 (online), the Miami Herald published an editorial, written by Mark Wilson, president and CEO of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, titled Workers’ comp rate hike will hurt Florida businesses.

Mr. Wilson contends that two recent Florida Supreme Court decisions will cause workers’ compensation insurance premiums to rise, “all for the benefit of billboard trial lawyers.” While it is debatable whether rates will or should increase, there is no question that the decisions were just and proper. Moreover, the true and deserved beneficiaries of the court decisions are injured workers, not “billboard trial lawyers.” Positive results have already been experienced on the ground.

The first case mentioned by Mr. Wilson, Castellanos v. Next Door Company, et al. (Fla., 2016), was decided on April 28, 2016. It involved a challenge to a workers’ compensation statute that made it exceedingly difficult for injured workers to obtain adequate legal representation.

Mr. Wilson fails to present any Castellanos case facts, attempting, instead, to sway unknowing readers with inflammatory and broad brush statements. He does not even give the full case name to make it easier for curious readers to find and read the decision to reach informed conclusions.

Shame on him. Shame on the Miami Herald for providing the forum.

Continue reading