Since at least 2002, when Jeb Bush and a super-majority of Republicans passed legislation eliminating important workers’ rights, Florida’s workers’ compensation system has been unfair and unbalanced. One circuit court judge has declared it unconstitutional — Florida’s Workers’ Compensation System Unconstitutional, So Says 11th Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto.
The time is approaching when the Florida Supreme Court may agree with Judge Cueto.
Continue reading
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States established a formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated. The court ruled that the person in custody must be informed that he/she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says can be used against the person in a court of law. What developed from the ruling is the well-known “Miranda Warning”:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
Even though the Miranda Warning only applies to criminal suspects, potential personal injury civil litigants should consider the wisdom of remaining silent until receiving the advice of counsel. The alternative is to risk saying something that will harm the civil case.
Fault and damages are key components of every personal injury case. Limiting both is the primary objective of every liability insurance company. Adjusters, investigators, and lawyers are employed to this end from the very beginning of a reported claim. They will quickly reach out for information from witnesses and victims for the purpose of obtaining incriminating and exculpatory evidence to limit their exposure. What a victim says to these people can be used against him/her in and out of court.
(Read this blog, Limited Application of Florida’s Motor Vehicle Accident/Crash Report Privilege, for the confidentiality of statements given to motor vehicle crash investigators.)
Continue reading
Once again Pam Bondi, Florida’s Teabagging Attorney General, has decided to waste the taxpayer’s money on another anti-decency crusade. Consistent with her opposition to Gay marriage, government in the Sunshine, the Affordable Care Act, and medical marijuana, the twice-divorced Attorney General has chosen to appeal the August 13, 2014 ruling of 11th Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto declaring Florida’s workers’ compensation system in violation of both the Florida and U.S. constitutions as no longer providing a “reasonable alternative” to the tort system for workers seeking recompense for job related injuries. See this blog: Florida’s Workers’ Compensation System Unconstitutional, So Says 11th Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto.
Continue reading
Most people are surprised to learn that most hospital emergency room physicians are not hospital employees. Instead, they are independent contractors.
“An independent contractor is a natural person, business, or corporation that provides goods or services to another entity under terms specified in a contract or within a verbal agreement. Unlike an employee, an independent contractor does not work regularly for an employer but works as and when required, during which time he or she may be subject to law of agency. Independent contractors are usually paid on a freelance basis. Contractors often work through a limited company or franchise, which they themselves own, or may work through an umbrella company.”
By amending §768.81 Florida Statues, the Florida Legislature eliminated, effective 2006, the application of joint and several liability in most personal injury cases. Under the joint and several doctrine, in cases involving multiple defendants each negligent defendant was wholly responsible financially for the negligence of every other defendant. This concept especially benefited plaintiffs where one or more negligent defendant did not have the financial means to satisfy its share of the damages awarded, while one or more other defendants had the means to satisfy the entire award.
The doctrine was replaced by the comparative fault doctrine. Under this doctrine, each defendant’s share of liability was limited to its allocated percentage of fault. For example, if each of three defendants was found one-third at fault, the most any one of the three would be responsible for paying is one-third of the total damage award. If the total damage award was $1,000,000, the most any one of the three defendants would have to pay is $333,333.33. If the others could not afford to pay their shares, the injured Plaintiff would simply not be fully compensated. In comparison, under the joint and several doctrine each one of the three would be liable for the full measure of damages. If, for example, one of the defendants was the Coca-Cola company and the other two were poor deadbeats without adequate insurance coverage, Coca-Cola would be on the hook for the full amount. Coca-Cola would have a right to go after the other defendants to recoup some of the money it paid.
By scuttling joint and several liability, the Republican Legislature, with the full backing of then Governor Jeb Bush, shifted the burden of loss from insurance companies and large corporations onto injured victims.
While joint and several liability does not apply in most post-April, 2006 personal injury cases, it remains a viable legal doctrine in cases where an independent contractor has breached a non-delegable duty. The most common scenario involves a property owner who hires one or more independent contractors to perform maintenance and security in and around a property, like a shopping mall. If a person rightfully on the property is injured by the negligent performance by the independent contractor, the independent contractor and the property owner are jointly and severally liable. This has long been the law in Florida:
“The law imposes on hotels, apartments, innkeepers, etc., the duty to keep their buildings, premises and appliances in a condition reasonably safe for the use of their guests, or at least those parts of the buildings and premises to which the guest are invited and may reasonably be expected to use. The duty of maintaining safe premises cannot be delegated to another.“
Goldin v. Lipkind, 49 So.2d 539, 541 (Fla. 1950) (emphasis added). Moreover, this is a well-established principle of law recognized throughout the country. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 71, at 511-12 (5th ed. 1984).
Continue reading
In 1935, Florida first enacted a workers’ compensation system for the state’s employers and employees. The idea was to provide a greater degree of fairness and certainty for each. The primary advantage for employers was the immunity from most personal injury lawsuits, making it easier to anticipate expenses, while employees would receive benefits without first having to prove negligence against the employer. It was a model patterned on similar systems adopted in other states. Both sides gained, both sides lost, but the overall outcome was positive.
That is, until greed began to creep into the system. It didn’t take long.
Through legislative might, business interests soon began to whittle away at workers’ rights and benefits. From time to time, the courts slowed and reversed the erosion, but workers could do little in the long run to resist the rising tide of selfishness and greed.
Not surprisingly, the high mark of this tide of selfishness and greed came during Jeb Bush’s reign as Florida’s governor. Taking a page from his big brother George’s system in Texas, Jeb spearheaded efforts to gut Florida’s workers’ compensation system. 2002’s legislative session broke the system. Benefits were slashed and injured workers were denied the right to effective legal counsel.
Jeb received champagne toasts in boardrooms from Key West to northwest Florida. Mission Accomplished!
Continue reading
There was a time when few personal injury lawyers gave a moments thought to satisfying liens when wrapping up personal injury cases. Medicare liens, most especially.
Woe is the fate of the personal injury lawyer who operates that way today.
Medicare is a federal program that provides medical insurance to qualified elderly and disabled persons. However, with regard to medical expenses for which a third party (e.g., tortfeasor) bears responsibility, it is a secondary payer. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2). While Medicare will cover medical expenses in personal injury cases, it has the legal right to be reimbursed from the proceeds of third party payments.
Se difisil pou konprann kiles ki ka kalifye pou konpansasyon anba “Lalwa Sivivan Lanmò Abizif nan Florid,” seksyon 768.16 jiska 768.26; se tankou konplete yon devinèt. Anba gen yon tablo ki fasil a konprann ki montre enfòmasyon sa a epi ki kalite konpansasyon ki ka disponib. En patikilye, seksyon 768.21 e enpotan anpil. Tablo a esplike seksyon sa a.
Dapre lalwa a, se sèlman “sivivan legal” ak byen moun ki mouri te kite dèyè a ki kalifye pou konpansasyon ki koze pa zak entansyonèl oswa neglijans ki fèt pa yon twazyèm pati. Yon Reprezantan Pèsonèl (RP), souvan yon manm fanmi pre moun ki mouri a, se nonmen pa tribinal la, apre yo fin bay avi pou lòt pati ki ka enterese nan jere byen moun ki mouri te kite dèyè a. Reprezantan nan anboche yon avoka pou jwenn dedomajman anba lalwa. Lòt sivivan ka anboche avoka pa yo, men, ofisyèlman, yo dwe avanse anba Reprezantan Pèsonèl epi avoka ki chwazi pa RP la. Tipikman, tout sivivan yo dako ak chwa RP la. Avoka la oubyen avoka yo okipe dosye a sou yon baz kontenjan, sa vle di RP, sivivan, ak byen moun ki mouri te kite dèyè a, pa oblije peye frè avoka davans. Si avoka rive jwenn bon rezilta ak dosye a, avoka a resevwa yon pousantaj nan dedomajman an ak tout frè ki asosye ak pouswit dedomajman an.
Ki moun ak kisa ki ka dedomaje anba lalwa varye selon sikonstans dosye a. Lalwa sa te defye anpil fwa nan tribinal la, men li toujour rete lalwa. Se selman aksyon Lejislati nan Florid la ki ka chanje lalwa a.
Moun ki andomaje nan travay ap fè fas ak yon gwo pwoblèm sou zafè dwa yo genyen anba sistèm konpansasyon pou anplwaye ki andomaje nan travay nan Florid depi kòmansman’l nan ane 1935. Kèk nan peryòd sa yo te pi mal pase kèk lòt. Sepandan, pa gen yonn ki te ka pi mal pase tan Jeb Bush te sèvi kòm 43èm Gouvènè nan Florid soti nan ane 1999 rive nan 2007, ansanm ak yon chanm Depite ak Senatè ki te anba kontwòl Repibliken yo. Ansanm, yo te kraze sistèm lan.
Apre plizyè ane nan enjistis ak soufrans, li sanble yo pral kòmanse rekòlte sa yo te simen.
Anvan Florida te vini ak sistèm konpansasyon pou anplwaye ki andomaje nan travay la, pou yo te peye yon anplwaye ki andomaje pou jou travay li te pèdi epi pou ba li benefis medikal, li te bezwen bay anpil prèv aksidan te rive akòz neglijans travay la. Sa te yon tèt chaje ke lwa leta te rann pi difisil toujou sitou si yo te gen kèk prèv anplwaye a pat pran prekosyon oswa li te aksepte travay nan kondisyon ki te ka kreye pwoblèm sa yo. Sistèm sa te akoz anpil anplwaye pa resevwa benefis. Sistèm sa pat nan benefis konpayi travay yo tou ki te fè yo pase anpil tan nan pwosè.
Injured workers have experienced a steady erosion of their rights under Florida’s workers’ compensation system since its inception in 1935. Some periods have seen greater losses than others. None, however, were as ugly as the Jeb Bush years, when he served as the 43rd Governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007, along with a Republican-controlled House and Senate. Together, they happily gutted the system.
After years of injustice and suffering, the chickens may be coming home to roost.
Before Florida had a workers’ compensation system, in order for an injured worker to receive lost wages and medical benefits, he or she was burdened with proving employer-fault caused the accident. This was a time-consuming and always difficult burden, made more tenuous by legal principles that barred any recovery if the worker – contributory fault – or a fellow servant were even slightly at fault, or the employee accepted the dangers of hazardous employment. This system, a form of common law negligence, saw most injured workers go without ever receiving benefits. The system also proved unwieldy to employers, who were regularly tied up in lawsuits and could not reasonably predict their exposure.
Continue reading
Florida Injury Attorney Blawg