by

dollars.jpgIn Florida, a claim for wrongful death is brought by a court-appointed personal representative on behalf of the decedent’s estate and survivors. Florida’s Wrongful Death Act (FWDA) (Florida Statute Sections 768.16-768.26) outlines the specific damages recoverable by the estate and the survivors (e.g., surviving spouse and children).

Many wrongful death victims receive medical care for the injuries that have caused them to die. Frequently, Medicare pays those medical expenses.

In 1980, Congress enacted the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. The Act authorized the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to seek reimbursement for medical expenses incurred on behalf of wrongful death victims. One of the policies employed was to seek reimbursements from the property of wrongful death survivors who have no obligation or other connection to Medicare. This was always wrong, but it took a federal court to make the secretary understand.

Cases brought under the FWDA are resolved in favor of the estate and survivors in one of three ways: (1) pre-lawsult settlement; (2) settlement during suit; or (3) jury verdict rendered to a final judgment. When a case is settled, the personal representative is responsible for allocating the settlement proceeds between the estate and the survivors. In many instances, the estate is left with only a tiny portion of the overall recovery.

Until September 29, 2010, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services gave little regard to the allocations made under alternatives (1) and (2). The only allocations respected by the secretary were those made by a jury, alternative (3). Backed by the federal government, the secretary would muscle reimbursements from allocations made to survivors under options (1) and (2), even when the allocations are approved by a probate court judge. This was unacceptable to the personal representative and survivors in Bradley v. Sebelius, 621 F.3d 1330, 2010 WL 3769132 (11th Cir. 2010), who challenged the secretary’s practice of ignoring allocations made by personal representatives and approved by probate courts.
Continue reading

by

nursing home abuse.jpgKudos to The Miami Herald for exposing the widespread abuse and neglect of residents within Florida’s nearly 2900 nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, and AHCA’s failure to perform its mandate to regulate and punish the wrongdoers. NEGLECTED TO DEATH Part I; Part II; Part III.

It is a must read and will make your blood boil… unless, of course, you are Governor Rick Scott or one of his merry band of radical right-wing Republican legislators who are pushing to create laws designed to weaken rather than strengthen the rights of private citizens to hold bad facilites accountable.

These are some of The Herald’s findings:

  • 70 People died from abuse or neglect since 2002.
  • 1,732 Homes were caught using illegal restraints like ropes, locking residents in closets, and tranquilizing them since 2002.
  • Only 26 facilities closed down by AHCA since 2002. State regulators could have shut down 70 homes in the past two years for a host of severe violations – including abuse and neglect by caretakes – but in the end, closed just seven.
  • 13,250 Police and rescue calls to a small enclave of ALFs in Broward County since 2005 – essentially one every four hours.
  • While the number of new homes has exploded across the state – 550 in the past five years – the state has dropped critical inspections by 33 percent, allowing some of the worst facilities to stay open.
  • Though the state has the power to impose fines on homes that break the law, the penalties are routinely decreased, delayed or dropped altogether. Consider: In 2009 AHCA could have imposed more than $6 million in fines, but took in just $650,000.

Now for what Rick Scott and his cohorts are seeking to enact:
House Bill 661 and Senate Bill 1396 would cap non-economic damages at $250,000 in wrongful death cases involving nursing homes for the first time. It would also make it more difficult to obtain punitive damages, and prohibit naming an out-of-town owner or investor of a nursing home in a lawsuit.
Continue reading

by

dive boat.jpgTourists and local recreational scuba divers who use the services of dive companies, may wish to take note of an event that happened to a diver in California.

A dive company was staging a dive near the oil rig Eureka in 2004 when the a diver surfaced 400 feet away from the vessel after having difficulty equalizing the pressure in his ears. He tried to swim back to the boat, but got leg cramps. No one noticed his absence and a dive master for the company marked him as present. The boat moved to a second site some seven miles away, and there the stranded diver was mistakenly marked as taking a second dive! More than three hours after the diver had been left behind at the first dive site, the crew realized he was missing and radioed the U.S. Coast Guard. The diver was eventually rescued miles away by a ship carrying boy scouts.

The diver sued the dive company. The jury was told that the diver had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and got skin cancer from exposure. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the diver in the amount of $1.68 million for damages. The trial lasted 23 days.

Florida, although a worldwide mecca for diving, has very little on the books with regard to regulating the sport, and nothing at all focused on dive charters per se. This means that the rules regulating dive charters will mostly be controlled by common law, case made law. This will typically suffice, although it might be nice to have some hard, statutory guidance in place to address common dive charter situations, such as keeping tabs of who is on and and who is off the vessel.
Continue reading

by

tractor trailer.jpgAdopted in 1920, Florida’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. See Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 468, 86 So. 629, 637 (1920). As expressed in Southern Cotton Oil:

[O]ne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by one so authorized by the owner.

Over the years, the doctrine has been applied to golf carts, trucks, buses, tow-motors and other motorized vehicles. Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla: Supreme Court 1984); See, e.g., Eagle Stevedores, Inc. v. Thomas, 145 So.2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Does the doctrine apply to trailers that make up the semi, tractor-trailer rigs so common to our highways? To the surprise of many, including some lawyers, the answer is No. See Saullo v. Douglas, 957 So.2d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Pullman v. Johnson, 543 So.2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Edwards v. ABC Transportation Co., 616 So.2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Continue reading

by

helpful tips.jpgMotor vehicle accident victims would be well advised to follow these basic suggestions, many of which are applicable to other types of accidents:

  1. DO NOT give any statements, in writing or over the phone, to anyone about your car accident or injuries. This can even apply to your own insurance company, although caution must be taken here to avoid giving your insurance company an excuse for denying coverage. This condition is one reason why it is important to consult with a lawyer about your case as soon as possible. Car accident cases present countless landmines to those who are unaware of them.
  2. Take photographs of your car before it is repaired. Save and give the photographs to your lawyer. If you are unable to take photographs, your lawyer should get it done.
Continue reading

by

By its decision in Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company (Case no.: SC08-2269; opinion issued on April 21, 2011), the Supreme Court of Florida has declared that car rental agencies, unlike regular citizens and other businesses, are not vicariously liable for accidents involving the vehicles they own. Score one for big business!

Rafael Vargas was rear-ended and injured in his car by a rental vehicle owned by Enterprise Leasing Company. Vargas sued Enterprise for personal injuries on the theory of vicarious liability. The trial court dismissed the case and the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judge’s decision, inviting the Supreme Court to answer a question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, PREEMPT SECTION 324.021(9)(b)2, FLORIDA STATUTES (2007)?

The Supreme Court accepted the invitation and answered the certified question in the affirmative.

At the urging of the Bush Administration, in 2005 the Republican-controlled Congress enacted the Graves Amendment. Proponents of the federal law sought to immunize rental agencies from laws in the various states which held them financially responsible for injury and death caused by their vehicles. One of those laws is/was Florida Statute Section 324.021(9)(b)2. Opponents argued that the Graves Amendment did not preempt the Florida statute. Hence, the stage was set for Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company.
Continue reading

by

What are the rights of expectant parents for the death of a fetus from an incident like a slip and fall or medical malpractice? Surprisingly, because a fetus is not considered a person under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1997), neither parent may bring a claim for wrongful death or for loss of companionship. U.S. v. Dempsey, 635 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1994).

Because the law treats the death of a fetus as a physical injury to the mother, the mother may bring a personal injury action against the at-fault party. The action can include a claim for emotional injuries.

The viability of a father’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is far less certain. The answer depends, in part, on the mysterious and unpredictable “impact rule.”

In Florida, whether a person may recover for emotional injuries is governed by the impact rule. Florida’s impact rule provides as follows: “[b]efore a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress injuries must flow from personal injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact. The rule actually requires some impact on the plaintiff, or, in certain situations, the manifestation of severe emotional distress such as physical illness.” Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201, 206 (Fla. 2007).”

The rule was developed to limit “fictitious or speculative claims.” Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC, 967 So.2d 846, 850.
Continue reading

by

consequences.jpgFor too long, Florida employers and their workers’ compensation insurance carriers have been able to accuse employees of insurance fraud without consequence if proven wrong. No longer.

Until the recent decision in Carrillo v. Case Engineering Inc./Claims Center, (Fla. 1st DCA 2-11-2011), employers and their insurance carriers were free to assert the so-called “fraud defense” without regard for any negative consequences. Accordingly, with nothing to lose and much to gain, namely, claimants losing the right to all benefits, combined with an absurdly low standard of proof, carriers have used the defense indiscriminately for many years. In far too many cases, the calculation has been simply to throw the defense on the wall and hope that it sticks. If nothing else, it was a way of leveraging injured workers to settle their cases for less than full value.

Carrillo has changed the no risk element of the defense.

One of the few ways in which injured workers (claimants) can be awarded attorneys fees against employers and their insurance carriers, a valuable benefit, is if “a carrier or employer denies that an accident occurred… and the claimant prevails on the issue of compensability.” Florida Statute section 440.34(3)(c).
Continue reading

by

Whether a person injured on real property owned or controlled by another will be successful in bringing a claim for damages, depends in large part on the injured person’s status on the property at the time of the accident. The general categories and the duty owed under each are set forth in the following outline:

  • Public Invitee. A person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public. (Example: Child in a public park.) This landowner has the following duties: (1) to correct or warn of dangers that the owner knows or should know of by the use of reasonable care, and which the visitor cannot or should not know of by the use of reasonable care; and (2) to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. (See my previous blog on this subject.)
  • Business Invitee. A person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land. (Examples: A grocery story patron; a paying fan at a Miami Dolphins football game.) Duty: same as for Public Invitee.
  • Licensee By Invitation. A social guest. Duty: same as for Public Invitee.
  • Uninvited Licensee. A person who chooses to come upon the premises solely for his or her own convenience without invitation either expressed or reasonably implied under the circumstances. (Example: teenagers partying in a parking lot owned by a business establishment.) Duty: To refrain from willful or wanton injury (e.g., to remove any concealed “traps” of which the owner has actual knowledge).
  • Trespasser. A person who enters the premises without license, invitation, or other right, and intrudes for some definite purpose of his own, or at his own convenience, or merely as an idler with no apparent purpose, other than perhaps to satisfy his curiosity. Duty: same as for Uninvited Licensee.

Independent contractors injured on the premises do not fit squarely within any of these categories. As a general rule, one who hires an independent contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by that contractor’s employees in their work. As the Supreme Court observed in Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56, 60 (Fla.1973): if the owner is a passive nonparticipant, exercising no direct control over the project, he cannot be held liable.

A second line of cases bars the claims of independent contractors whose injuries were sustained while performing the independent contractor’s specialized work. In Morales v. Weil, 44 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the contractor was hired to demolish a barn with a roof damaged by two hurricanes. The damage was obvious and included a hole through the roof that was visible to the employees. However, in the course of the work one of the employees fell through a weakened roof panel and was injured. The Fourth District reviewed the applicable law and affirmed a summary judgment for the barn owners. The Court concluded that “the [owners] were in no better position than the [injured contractor employee] to assess the level of danger that the job posed. Consequently, the [owners] owed him no duty to maintain the roof in a reasonably safe condition.” Id. at 179.
Continue reading

by

vehicle rollover.jpgVehicles like the Ford Bronco II, Ford Explorer and 15-passenger vans are designed with an unreasonable risk of rollover. Although there are many things manufacturers can do to prevent rollover accidents, rollover accidents will occur in vehicles considered safe. Knowing this, manufacturers should implement safety features designed to limit rollover accident injuries.

Although rollover accidents constitute 1.74% to 6.3% of all accidents depending on the type of vehicle involved, they account for 33% of all serious injuries and death.

Amazingly, the federal government does not require manufacturers to conduct rollover accident testing. The consequence of this is a gap in knowledge in how best to prevent rollover accident injuries and many vehicles lacking available equipment to optimally protect occupants in a rollover.
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