by

ATV1.jpgFlorida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine “imposes strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another.” Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So. 2d 60, 62 (Fla. 2000). “Operation of a vehicle falls within the strict liability doctrine because a vehicle is dangerous to others when used for its ‘designed purpose.'” Harding v. Allen-Laux, Inc., 559 So. 2d 107, 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (quoting Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629, 638 (Fla. 1920)).

In Salsbury v. Kapka, 41 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the issue presented on appeal was “whether an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) is a ‘”dangerous instrumentality”‘ under Florida’s tort law.

Due to a lack of evidence, the appellate court (4th DCA) withheld judgment on the issue. Instead, it

by

us supreme court.jpgThe FLSA, codified at 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq., was enacted in 1938 in order to help the “lowest paid … of the nation’s working population” to secure a livable wage. Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 707 n. 18 (1945). Current FLSA law allows an employee to maintain an action against the employer “in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.” 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

The purpose of the provision authorizing an employee to sue in behalf of “other employees similarly situated,” which has come to be known as the “Collective Action Provision,” is to minimize litigation by allowing numerous claims to be brought against the same employer in one lawsuit. This benefits both sides. It benefits employees by making it easier for them to hire lawyers to handle their claims. In most FLSA claims, the amount in dispute is relatively small. Collective Action cases raise the stakes, making FLSA cases more enticing to lawyers. This is a practical reality, one that courts recognize as legitimate. CA cases benefit employers by allowing numerous claims to be resolved in one action instead of in individual lawsuits.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision appears to put Collective Action claims at risk.

In Genesis Healthcare Corporation v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), Symczyk sued under the FLSA for herself and other co-workers. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Symczyk’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after defendants Genesis Healthcare Corporation and Elder Care Resources Corporation extended an offer of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 68 in full satisfaction of her alleged damages, fees, and costs. The trial court decision was appealed. The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, framed the issue as follows: “At issue in this case is whether a collective action brought under § 216(b) of the FLSA becomes moot when, prior to moving for ‘”conditional certification”‘ and prior to any other plaintiff opting in to the suit, the putative representative receives a Rule 68 offer.” The court answered No, reversing the trial court’s ruling. Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F. 3d 189 (3rd Cir. 2011).
Continue reading

by

crushed vehicle.jpgFlorida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, a part of Florida jurisprudence since 1920 (Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920)), holds a motor vehicle owner vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of his or her vehicle by a permissive user. The damage caps contained in Florida Statute 324.021(9)(b)(3) limit the owner’s liability.

In Ortiz v. Regalado, So.3d. , 38 FLW D502a (Fla. 2d DCA 3-1-13), a vehicle owner asserted that he was entitled to this cap protection for an accident caused by the co-owner of his vehicle. The owners of the vehicle were father and son. The son crashed their jointly owned vehicle, killing a minor child. Father and son we’re sued. The father was sued on the theory of vicarious liability as the owner of the vehicle. The son was sued as the owner and negligent operator.

The jury awarded millions in damages allocated between the two defendants. .
Continue reading

by

dollars.jpgWe are frequently asked if workers’ compensation benefits are exempt from the claims of creditors? The answer is Yes and No.

The No first. WC benefits are not exempt from claims based on an award of child support or alimony. While it is up to the creditor to initiate the collection process, WC money can be garnished to satisfy these obligations. The amount garnishable is determined by a formula contained in the garnishment laws (Chapter 77).

In addition, portions of lump sum settlements will be applied against child support amounts in arrears. The rule of thumb is that up to 1/2 of the Claimant’s share of the lump sum settlement proceeds will be applied against the arrears.

Continue reading

by

handshake.jpgOn July 11, 2012, a former client walked into our office and described a February, 2008 work related accident. After being pushed to the ground while trying to break up a hallway fight in a South Florida High School, he was sent by his employer to a workers’ compensation clinic for medical care. His injuries consisted of neck and right shoulder pain.

After a month of treatment, he became disenchanted with the level of care and seeming indifference to his complaints. He spoke to the insurance adjuster, but was told to take it up with the doctor. He stopped going to the clinic.

Although the pain got progressively worse, he continued to work. He began seeing doctors through his health insurance. His primary care physician sent him to a neurologist and a pain management specialist. He was diagnosed with a serious cervical spine condition to explain the neck pain. He did not receive a diagnosis for the shoulder pain.

It became more and more difficult to work. Knowing that his disability was from the 2008 accident, he reached out to the workers’ compensation adjuster to authorize better medical care. This was more than two years after the accident. The adjuster told him that he had waited too long to pursue additional benefits, that the workers’ compensation statute of limitation had expired. See Florida Statute 440.19.

Shortly thereafter, he walked into our office.

After yelling at him for waiting so long to come to us, I decided to take a shot at reviving the case. Our one shot was that the employer/servicing agent had not advised him of his rights in accordance with FS 440.185. We filed a Petition for Benefits seeking authorization of medical care and lost wage benefits. At the same time, we filed a formal request with the employer/servicing agent to produce its entire claim file absent privileged documents.

Either the 440.185 statutory notice was there or it wasn’t.

After waiting an anxious 35 days for a response to our Request to Produce, we received the answer we had been hoping for: The 440.185 notice, if it ever existed, was nowhere to be found.

So much for E/SA’s SOL defense.
Continue reading

by

Shaking hands.jpgEvery case is different. From accident to injuries, no two cases are ever exactly alike. That said, certain common elements do run through every case. From time to time I will be posting about some of the cases our firm has resolved. The common elements should become apparent in these blogs.

This first example involves a 2011 premises liability accident. Our client slipped in wet paint as she was descending a stairway after work. The property owner had hired an unlicensed and inexperienced recent Cuban immigrant to improve the appearance of the premises for a December holiday party. The painter failed to place warnings signs around the stairwell. It was night time and the outside stairwell was poorly lit. The accident happened in the blink of an eye. There was nothing our client could do to prevent the fall.

Our client, who was wearing flat-soled shoes, landed squarely on her rear-end. She felt immediate pain. Grey paint stained her pants and blouse. She called a co-worker, who assisted her in receiving medical care at a clinic located in her building. Within days she was receiving medical care under the workers’ compensation system from doctors hand-picked by the WC insurance carrier.

Because the building owner was not her employer, she was free to pursue a premises liability case against the owner. (See this blog on the law of non-delegable duty and Florida Statute 440.11, Florida’s workers’ compensation immunity statute.) However, she was unaware of this right, and the workers’ compensation attorney she hired did not consider the option. Within months, our client became disenchanted with her workers’ compensation attorney and came to our law firm for a consultation.

Our law firm handles workers’ compensation and premises liability cases. We quickly recognized that she also had a viable personal injury case. We agreed to handle both cases. This was seven months after the accident.

Our first course of business was to request a slew of records, including medical and employment documents from the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. This was quicker, easier, and cheaper than requesting each set of records individually from the various entities. Within thirty days we had the records and were able to review them to get a clearer picture of the cases.

Among other things, we learned that she had undergone a 3-level spine fusion surgery in early 2012. We also learned that, in 2007, she had another, albeit less intrusive, back surgery. The prior surgery turned out to play a prominent role in the premises liability case.
Continue reading

by

scales.jpgA few months ago our law firm, working with the Domnick & Shevin, PL law firm, settled a difficult liability case against an insurance agency arising out of a catastrophic motorcycle crash.

Our client had been hospitalized for two months. Medicaid paid his substantial hospital bill. After the case settled, Medicaid came to us demanding to be repaid in full from the settlement proceeds.

We disputed Medicaid’s claim to be repaid in full. Instead, we offered the agency a small portion of the settlement to go away. Medicaid rejected the offer. Unwilling to give in, we filed a Motion to Reduce Medicaid Lien with the court that handled the underlying liability case. (We reserved jurisdiction with this court by including language In the Order of Voluntary Dismissal that it retained jurisdiction “to determine liens and reductions of liens based on equity or any other basis, including, but not limited to, Medicaid’s interest in any recovery.”)

Medicaid countered with a number of arguments. Among them: The court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. In its view, the Plaintiff was required to file a separate lawsuit, a dec action, against Medicaid; and Florida Statute 409.910 authorized a full recovery.
Continue reading

by

ladder1.jpgIn Umile v. Volpe, So.3d , 38 FLW D410, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeals held that a homeowner may be liable for injuries suffered by an independent contractor hired to perform work in his home.

The holding might appear to clash with this statement of Florida law:

“As a general rule, one who hires an independent contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by that contractor’s employees in performing their work.” Johnson v. Boca Raton Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 985 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

It doesn’t clash with Florida law.
Continue reading

by

Chess.jpgThis past week our firm settled a workers’ compensation case for $892,000. Included in the settlement package was a Medicare Set Aside. Importantly, while the workers’ compensation carrier had not obtained CMS approval prior to the settlement, the carrier guaranteed that it would cover any CMS required payments above those proposed. (The carrier also agreed that if CMS required less than the proposed amount, the Claimant would keep the difference.)

Without this guarantee, the case would not have settled. While the settlement was abundantly fair, the Claimant could not chance having to pay out-of-pocket to CMS more than was proposed. Moreover, he wanted the peace of mind of finality that only the guarantee could buy. The proposal was not a complete shot in the dark for the carrier, so the guarantee was not a big risk. The MSA proposal was generated by the carrier’s own experts, with backgrounds in medicine and billing, and extensive experience with CMS. Having been-there and done-that, the carrier’s team did not expect any big surprises. Nevertheless, the guarantee was a big deal for the Claimant. (Also helpful is that the carrier agreed to pay a private company — Medivest — to manage the Medicare Set-Aside. This is the way to go. Managing a Set-Aside is beyond the capabilities of most individuals and if done wrong, money will be wasted and Medicare benefits jeopardized.)

In cases where the Claimant has substantial future medical needs, it is important for Claimant’s attorneys to remember that the amount CMS is willing to approve for the MSA Set-Aside is often a small fraction of the actual cost of future medical expenses. For example, in the settlement mentioned above, the carrier’s exposure for future medical expenses was 15-20 times greater than the amount CMS will approve. Congress allowed this flexibility by understanding the importance to private business of being able to settle cases. (See, 42 C.F.R. §411.46, 42 C.F.R. §411.47 and §3407.7, or 42 C.F.R. §411.54, et seq., of the Medicare Intermediary Manual.) If MSAs had to equal full exposure, cases would be too costly to settle. Without being able to settle cases, the insurance industry would come to a grinding halt. This would harm the economy. The alternative was to make taxpayers shoulder some of the exposure. This is what happens when Set-Asides are approved for less than full exposure.
Continue reading

by

Rodin2 Thinker.jpgExperienced personal injury attorneys consider many factors in judging how to manage their cases. While common elements are present from case to case, no two cases are ever completely alike. Both subjective and objective considerations must be taken into account to reach decisions most beneficial to client and attorney alike. The decisions are always consequential. The best personal injury attorneys are the best decision makers.

The elements influence everything from: whether the law firm accepts a case; whether a lawsuit will be filed versus simply trying to resolve the case pre-suit; settlement amount; whether to go to trial; whether the case is declined after it has been accepted by the law firm. Since every case has many moving parts, these and other case management decisions are adjusted frequently.

COMMON CONSIDERATIONS
Insurance coverage. There are many different types of liability insurance to cover for losses caused by negligence. The more common are homeowners, premises liability, bodily injury (BI), and medical malpractice. Most individuals and businesses with sizable unprotected assets have strong liability insurance coverage. A fair percentage with weaker financial positions have coverage, although usually with lower policy limits. Some have no coverage at all. The state of Florida has few requirements for maintaining liability insurance. (One exception is for tractor trailers/18-wheelers. The owner is required to maintain $750,000 in coverage. Unfortunately, laws are often violated, including as to maintaining insurance. Surprisingly, doctors are not required to maintain malpractice insurance.) It is mostly left as a personal choice. No matter how significant the damages, no financial means plus no insurance usually means no recovery. Few lawyers will accept a case under these circumstances. Coverage that is available but limited under the circumstances can influence a lawyer’s decision to take the case, or how hard and far to push it.

Negligence. Florida operates a fault-based civil liability system. (The workers’ compensation system, covered in Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, is not fault-based. Benefits, rather than damages, are recoverable under Chapter 440. These benefits are much different than the damages recoverable under the civil liability system.) Only conduct which falls below a reasonable standard is punished. Fault can be shared by various individuals and entities, including the aggrieved party. This is the concept of comparative fault. Fault can be clear, it can be gross, it can be illusive. These fault considerations (and more) influence the course and outcome of every negligence case. Fault must be proved by the aggrieved party to recover damages (e.g., medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering).

Injuries. Other factors aside, the worth of any personal injury case is always capped by the extent of the injuries. Put another way, an accident without injuries is an accident without value. Individuals can be compensated for the aggravation of pre-existing injuries. See Florida Standard Jury Instruction 501.5(a). This is a frequent battleground issue. Our firm is in suit for a woman involved in a slip and fall accident. Within months of the accident, she underwent a 3-level spine fusion surgery. Because of a relatively minor back surgery 7 years before and some evidence of normal preexisting degeneration, the Defendant is trying to avoid blame for her injuries. It has even hired a notorious insurance company “whore” doctor to support its position. (Mediation is scheduled.)

Medical Treatment. Medical conditions must be documented to be proven. Receiving consistent care from reputable doctors is an important component. Insurance companies know the players, juries are good at recognizing the good and the bad. Delaying the receipt of care or gaps in care make a difference. While there are reasonable explanations for inconsistent care — the most common being the inability to pay — a good personal injury attorney can help make arrangements for timely, steady, and quality care to be provided.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
9999 NE 2nd Ave, #304
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com
Palm Beach Gardens
2401 PGA Blvd #140
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design