by

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay employees overtime pay, at a rate of time and a half, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Act contains many exemptions.

Many court battles have and will continue to be fought over these exemptions. One that is difficult for Claimants to beat is the so-called “Companionship services” exemption, derived from The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Section 552.6. The section provides as follows:

As used in section 13(a)(15) of the Act, the term companionship services shall mean those services which provide fellowship, care, and protection for a person who, because of advanced age or physical or mental infirmity, cannot care for his or her own needs. Such services may include household work related to the care of the aged or infirm person such as meal preparation, bed making, washing of clothes, and other similar services. They may also include the performance of general household work: Provided, however, That such work is incidental, i.e., does not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked. The term “companionship services” does not include services relating to the care and protection of the aged or infirm which require and are performed by trained personnel, such as a registered or practical nurse. While such trained personnel do not qualify as companions, this fact does not remove them from the category of covered domestic service employees when employed in or about a private household.

Continue reading

by

In January of this year, President Obama signed a $1.4 billion overhaul of the nation’s food safety system. It is the first major overhaul of the food safety system since the 1930s. It comes on the heels of several deadly outbreaks of E. coli and salmonella poisoning in peanuts, eggs, and produce in the past few years, and aims to reduce the estimated – by the CDC – 48 million Americans who are sickened every year by food borne illness. (Of that, 180,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die.) The law emphasizes prevention through increased inspections of U.S. and foreign food facilities, allowing the FDA to order the recall of tainted food, the imposition of new safety regulations on producers of the highest-risk fruits and vegetables, and requiring processors to provide detailed food safety plans to the FDA. (The law exampts meat, poultry and processed eggs, since they are regulated by the Agriculture Department. Also exempt are some small businesses.)

Only right-wing Republicans would oppose such legislation … and they do.
Continue reading

by

Premises liability lawyers, both Plaintiff and Defense, know that evidence of prior accidents or events may, by a showing of substantially similar conditions, be admissible to prove one or more elements of a case. Less well recognized is that no-accident history may also be admitted into evidence for a variety of purposes.

No-accident history may be admissible to show: (1) An absence of the defect or condition alleged, (2) the lack of a causal relationship between the injury and the defect or condition charged, (3) the nonexistence of an unduly dangerous situation, or (4) want of knowledge (or of grounds to realize) the danger.

Relevant cases

  • Springtree Props., Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla.1997) (considering absence of similar accidents in determining whether fact issues remained)
  • Cent. Theatres v. Wilkinson, 154 Fla. 589, 18 So.2d 755 (1944) (evidence that for several years there had been no accident from shooting at location admissible);
  • Lewis v. Sun Time Corp., 47 So. 3d 872 3rd (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010) (allowed evidence of no-falls on wet terrazzo steps since the hotel was opened in 1937)
  • State, Dep’t of Transp. v. Patterson, 594 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“[A]ppellant was entitled to have the jury consider that the records it still maintained revealed no bicycle accidents in the tunnel prior to the present accident.”)
  • McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (relying in part on evidence that no one had fallen over the concrete blocks at issue during the preceding seventeen years)
  • Doe v. U.S., 718 F.2d 1039, 1043 (11th Cir.1983) (applying Florida law and approving evidence that for a number of years before the incident, there had never been a crime against a person committed on the premises)
  • Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 299 So.2d 590, 594 (Fla.1974); Williams v. Madden, 588 So.2d 41, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) involving the admission of testimony concerning the prior safety history of the site in question, that is, previous accidents or their absence
  • Lawrence v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 346 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Fla.1977) (“[D]eterminations of whether a proper predicate of similarity exists should be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.”)
  • Friddle v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 306 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So.2d 870, 873 (Fla.1969); Hogan v. Gable, 30 So.3d 573, 575-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Warn Indus. v. Geist, 343 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); but cf. Godfrey v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 46 So.3d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Cooper v. State, 45 So.3d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (concluding “the dissimilarities of these cases are greater than their similarities”)

Continue reading

by

Florida Statute 627.409 (2010) allows an insurance company to rescind an insurance policy on the grounds of misrepresentation if it can prove:

a) The misrepresentation, omission, concealment, or statement is fraudulent or is material either to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by the insurer.

(b) If the true facts had been known to the insurer pursuant to a policy requirement or other requirement, the insurer in good faith would not have issued the policy or contract, would not have issued it at the same premium rate, would not have issued a policy or contract in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss.

However, in Casamassina v. US Life Ins. Co., 958 So. 2d 1093 (4th DCA 2007), the insurance carrier was prevented from using the statute to rescind the policy by language in its own insurance application.

United States Life Insurance Company issued a $500,000 life insurance policy to John Casamassina on November 6, 1997. Less than two weeks later, Casamassina was diagnosed with a brain tumor; he died on December 4, 1997. After U.S. Life denied the policy claim, the trust beneficiary of the policy and the widow filed suit.
Continue reading

by

legal document.jpgJob one of lawyers who represent individuals who have suffered personal injuries and/or property damage losses is to maximize the client’s recovery. The conventional thinking is that the recovery in every case is limited by the measure of actual damages, in other words, the recovery cannot exceed the loss.

Surprisingly, this is a rule that can be broken … with a proviso.

In Despointes v. Florida Power Corporation, 2 So.3d 360 (2nd DCA 2008), a person who was paid $224,567.66 by her own insurance company, CIGNA, for fire damage, was able to pursue a claim for damages, through her estate, against a third party for the amount already recovered from the insurance company.

The device used for this opportunity was an assignment from CIGNA of its subrogation/reimbursement right.

The CIGNA policy provided for the right of subrogation against any third party recovery. This right authorized CIGNA to pursue a claim against the third party responsible for causing the house fire for the amount it paid to its insured. Instead of pursuing the claim, it assigned the right to its insured.

Thereafter, the insured sued the third party, Intermatic, alleging that the fire had been caused by a defective surge protector. The Defendant argued that the insured was not allowed to recover the money she had already received.

The trial court agreed. The Second District Court of Appeal did not.
Continue reading

by

ankle x-ray - hardware.jpgThe most important job of every personal injury lawyer is to maximize the amount of his or her client’s monetary recovery. The damage elements of every personal injury case are “pain & suffering” and economic damages (which includes lost wages, loss of earning capacity, out-of-pocket expenses, and past and future medical expenses). The nature and extent of the injuries bear on every element of damages. Accordingly, effectively demonstrating the nature and extent of the injuries is a critical component in every personal injury case. Various methods are available.

Although medical illustrations, both generic and case-specific, are the traditional way of demonstrating injuries, they continue to serve a convincing role in presenting evidence in today’s high tech world. Generic illustrations are less costly and can be used in other cases, but may have less impact than case-specific demonstrations. For spine injuries, showing a summary of pain management injections is effective. The exhibit will visually show every date injections were administered, along with the location, size, and shape of each needle and syringe entering the spine. To have this chart made, the medical illustrator must be provided with the medical records containing the injections information or a summary detailing the information.
Continue reading

by

Florida is one of only three states in the country that has yet to enact legislation requiring children six and older or too small for lap and shoulder belts to be placed in booster seats or integrated systems. A bill (Senate Bill 238) was proposed in the 2011 legislative session to close the gap, but failed to be enacted. Apparently, the Legislature considered it more important to benefit Corporate America, by re-allocating liability in crashworthiness cases, than protect its children.

Florida requires that children three and younger be restrained in a federally approved child restraint device consisting of a separate carrier or a vehicle-manufactured integrated child seat, and that children four and five-years old be restrained in a separate device, the integrated seat, or just the auto manufacturer’s seat belt. Florida Statute Section 316.613(1)(a).
Continue reading

by

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay employees overtime pay, at a rate of time and a half, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. See Section 207 of the Act. Pursuant to 29 U. S. C. §216(b), an action to recover overtime pay may be maintained in any Federal or State court of “competent” jurisdiction.

In which Florida State court, circuit or county, a claim may be brought, also known as the court’s statutory authority, typically depends on the amount in controversy as determined by the allegations set forth in the Complaint. These are the 2011 jurisdictional levels:

  • Circuit Civil: where the amount of damages sought is in excess of $15,000.
  • County Civil: where damages sought range from $.01 to $15,000 (In Miami-Dade County, where damages sought range from $.01 to $5,000, cases are assigned to the small claims division, with its own set of procedures including summary administration.)

Many individual (vs. class action) FLSA claims involve sums of less than $15,000.
Continue reading

by

lunch break.jpgFor an accident to be compensable (or covered) under the workers’ compensation system, it must happen in the course and scope of the employment. Generally, where the employment has fixed time and location requirements, accidents off the premises during lunch are not compensable. In other words, these accidents do not occur in the course and scope of the employment. In contrast, accidents occurring on premises during breaks or while the employee is attending to personal comfort are more likely to be considered compensable. (Caveat: an exception to compensability arises where the accident has happened during a substantial deviation from the break.)

Lunch Time Accidents

  • On Employer’s Premises: Compensable. Doctor’s Business Service, Inc. v. Clark, 498 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). No compensability during substantial deviation. What constitutes a “substantial deviation” will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
  • Away from Employer’s Premises: Not compensable. The same principles apply as in the “going and coming rule,” i.e., accidents while going and coming from work at the beginning and end of the work day.

Personal Comfort and Rest Breaks Generally, accidents that happen during these situations are compensable. A primary distinguishing reason for compensability is the duration of the event. The courts consider control by the employer over the employee to be an important factor. The duration of off-site lunch breaks loosen the grip of control enough to eliminate compensability, while the degree of control maintained during personal comfort and rest breaks, even those of short duration off premises, satisfies the course and scope requirement. Although the determination, of course, must be made on a case by case basis, a helpful standard was announced in City of Miami v. Dwight, 637 So.2d 981, 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994): “If the employer, in all the circumstances, including duration, shortness of off-premises distance, and limitations on off-premises activity during the interval can be deemed to have retained authority over the employee, the off-premises injury may be found to be within the course of employment.”
Continue reading

by

scales of justice.jpgFollowing the Casey Anthony verdict, many of my Facebook Friends posted attacks on the jury and the jury system. Pasted below are responses to those attacks that I posted to Facebook.

*********************************************
Posted on July 5, 2011:
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson – ever heard of them? – would be sickened by all of the cynicism directed at the jury and the jury system. Unlike most here, they would be proud of the jury and the way the system worked. Hard to believe that grown adults are so willing to substitute their judgment, formed from the know-nothing talking heads on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, et al, for the considered judgment of 12 regular people who heard ALL of the admissable evidence and deliberated as a body to reach it’s verdict. Scary, really. Required viewing for those who think they know better than this jury: 12 ANGRY MEN, starring Henry Fonda. Also, read The Magna Carta (The Great Charter), Article 39 and Deuteronomy. At least learn a little something about the American justice system and its foundings before yapping.
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