by

At the urging of Governor Jeb Bush, Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2002 passed a workers’ compensation bill designed to limit carrier-paid attorney’s fees to claimants’ attorneys. The measure was challenged in the courts by claimants (injured workers), who argued that it was unconstitutional (denied access to courts & equal protection) and that it should be interpreted to allow for “reasonable” attorney’s fees.

Five years after the bill’s effective date, the Florida Supreme Court, in Murray v. Mariner Health and Ace USA, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008), held that the statute provided for reasonable attorney’s fees. The court did not rule on the constitutional issues.

In a clear rebuke to the Florida Supreme Court, in it’s next legislative session, which began on March 1, 2009, less than seven months after the Murray decision, the still-again Republican-controlled legislature took another shot at limiting fees. What it did was remove the word “reasonable” from Florida Statute 440.34. The Legislature’s goal was to make it difficult for injured workers to obtain adequate legal representation by denying their attorneys reasonable attorney’s fees.

In the Murray case, Ms. Murray was successful at the trial level in convincing a judge of workers’ compensation claims (JCC) that her injuries were sustained in a work-related accident. (The employer/carrier (e/c) had denied her injuries.) In a subsequent attorney’s fee hearing, the JCC found that claimant’s counsel expended eighty hours of reasonable and necessary time on the case. However, the JCC, although concluding in his written order that $16,000 was a reasonable fee, felt constrained by the statute and awarded only $684.84, or an hourly rate of $8.11. According to the JCC, this amount was “manifestly unfair.” (Note: the e/c in this case paid their attorney $16,050 (135 hours at $125 an hour) in the unsuccessful effort to resist paying benefits.) It was this order that was appealed and eventually made its way to the Florida Supreme Court. As a result of the decision, Ms. Murray’s attorney was awared $16,000 for his efforts at the trial level.
Continue reading

by

doctor.jpgUnder no circumstances may a civil action alleging medical malpractice/negligence be started in Florida more than seven years from the date of the incident or occurrence out of which the action accrued. This 7-year limitation is imposed by what is called a statute of repose, set forth in Florida Statute 95.11(4)(b). This is not to say that every medical negligence claim can be instituted up to seven years from the date of the incident or occurrence out of which the action accrued. Most cannot.

The time limit for starting most medical malpractice cases is controlled by the section of 95.11(4)(b) that provides as follows: “An action for medical malpractice shall be commenced within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence; however, in no event shall the action be commenced later than 4 years from the date of the incident or occurrence out of which the cause of action accrued….” This is Florida’s medical negligence statute of limitations. It is not the same thing as the statute of repose.

How is the 4 year sol limit stretched to 7 years? By showing that “fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation of fact prevented the discovery of the injury….” id. When the burden is met, “the period of limitations is extended forward 2 years from the time that the injury is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, but in no event to exceed 7 years from the date the incident giving rise to the injury occurred.” Hence, the 7 year cap.

(IMPORTANT NOTE: Nothing shall bar an action brought on behalf of a minor on or before the child’s eighth birthday. 95.11(4)(b))
Continue reading

by

law books.jpgA statute of limitation is an enactment in a common law legal system that sets forth the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated. Most people are familiar with the concept.

Far less familiar to the general public, and even to some lawyers, is the legal concept known as statute of repose. Like a statute of limitation, a statute of repose (sometimes called a nonclaim statute) limits the time period in which a civil action may be instituted.

A products liability case is a legal action for injuries founded on the defective design, manufacture, distribution, or sale of personal property. Examples of products found to be defective are tires, motor vehicles, drugs, and surgical hardware. In Florida, defective products cases are subject to a statute of limitation and a statute of repose.

The statute of limitation in Florida with regard to injuries caused by defective products is four years. (Florida Statute 95.11(3)(e)). (Caveat: When death results from a defective product, Florida’s Wrongful Death Act imposes a two year statute of limitations.) This means that a lawsuit founded on a defective product must be filed within four years or two years of when it is known or should have reasonably known what caused the accident.

Sometimes, however, the statute of repose effectively limits the time allowed under the statute of limitation and, in some instances, bars altogether a claim from being brought.

An actual case example will help illustrate this point:

Our law firm was recently hired by a gentleman who was severely injured by a defective forklift. Through discovery conducted in his workers’ compensation case, we learned that the manufacturer originally sold the forklift in 1996, more than fourteen years before the accident.

Even though we were prepared to file a products liability complaint well within the two year statute of limitation period, we were prevented from doing so by the statute of repose.
Continue reading

by

epidemiology.jpgEpidemiology is the study of patterns of health and illness and associated factors at the population level. Forensic (applying science to answer questions of interest to a legal system) epidemiology can be useful in personal injuries cases to prove causation of an injury.

The personal injury claimant has the burden of proving that his/her injuries or conditions were more likely than not caused by an accident or offending agent (e.g., smoking). This burden becomes more difficult when the complained of injuries and conditions can occur naturally without a known precipitating cause. Examples include herniated intervertrebral discs and lung cancer.

Various types of experts, including doctors and biomechanists, are used on both sides to present evidence regarding the issue of causation. The expertise of forensic epidemiologists is greatly underutilized.

Epidemiologists use “relative risk” to compare the chance of injuries and conditions being caused in certain ways. Two examples: (1) The risk of an intervertebral disc injury from a crash is 1 in 200, while the risk of an individual developing the symptoms at the same point in time if the crash hadn’t occurred is usually less than 1 in 100,000. (2) The chance that a person who smokes will get lung cancer is 20% compared to 1% for non-smokers.

A common defense tactic in civil justice cases is to propose alternative explanations for the injuries/conditions besides the targeted accident or exposure. The defendant’s hope is that a jury will attribute the damage to something other than the accident or exposure. The epidemiologist can be an important expert to counter the shifting-blame defense.
Continue reading

by

Companies and individuals in possession or control of real property have a nondelegable duty to keep that property in a reasonably safe condition. Liability for personal injuries caused by a breach of the duty cannot be avoided by hiring an independent contractor to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.

A recent example was reported in the Florida appellate case Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs Inc. (Fla. App., 2010). Mr. Armiger sued Associated and Clean Sweep Supply Company after he slipped and fell in a puddle of water in the grandstand of a greyhound track operated by Associated. Although Associated had contracted with Clean Sweep to clean and maintain the areas of the facility — including the grandstand — that were open to the public during racing performances, Associated was held to answer for Clean Sweep’s alleged acts of negligence.

The duty to maintain adequate security also is nondelegable.
Continue reading

by

fred thompson.jpgFrom time to time, I will post to my blog site the writings of other individuals on legal topics of interest to me. For those familiar with my own blogs, it is clear that I strongly oppose efforts to limit the authority of juries to render just verdicts. Particularly insidious, in my view, are laws that limit damage caps.

For the most part, it is Republicans who are leading the charge on behalf of big business to curtail the rights of individuals to seek redress within the framework of the civil justice system. Profits over People. That Republicans would be leading the charge has always struck me as running counter to their oft-stated message of personal accountability, responsibility, and consequences for bad acts. “Tort Reform,” as big business propogandists like to call it – or, as I prefer to call it, “Tort Deform” – seeks to protect corporations from consequences, accountability, and responsibility.

Sadly, you never hear Republicans, much less prominent Republicans, speaking out against “Tort Reform.” Until now.

Fred Dalton Thompson (born August 19, 1942), is an American politician, actor, attorney, lobbyist, columnist, and radio host. He served as a Republican U.S. Senator from Tennessee from 1994 through 2003, and ran for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. He opposes “Tort Reform.”

The following piece, written by Mr. Thompson, was recently brought to my attention. I found that it contained thoughtful and compelling arguments against “Tort Reform.” Kudos to Mr. Thompson. Here’s the opinion piece:

I have been asked why I want to take part in the discussions when the state legislature considers changes to our civil justice system in Tennessee. I am certainly aware of the ideological boxes that advocates like to put folks in when it comes to “tort reform.”

Republicans and conservatives are supposed to be for anything called tort reform. However, I’ve never subscribed to these boxes. Not when I was in the U.S. Senate faced with these issues, and not now.

Some argue that the legislature should tell Tennessee juries that they can award only so much compensation in certain types of cases against certain types of defendants — regardless of the facts and circumstances of the case. I don’t agree with this approach, and I don’t think it’s “conservative.”

To me, conservatism shows due respect for a civil justice system that is rooted in the U.S. Constitution and is the greatest form of private regulation ever created by society. Conservatism is individual responsibility and accountability for damages caused, even unintentionally. It’s about government closest to the people and equal justice with no special rules for anybody. It’s also about respect for the common-law principle of right to trial by jury in civil cases that was incorporated into the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.
Continue reading

by

Florida no longer recognizes the principle of joint and several liability with regard to satisfying final judgments rendered in personal injury cases. Under the concept of joint and several liability, one liable defendant could be forced to pay for the fault of other defendants. One of the theories behind the concept is that the damages would not have occurred but for that party’s fault, so make each party whose fault formed part of the chain leading to the total damages, liable for the fault of all.

Where one or more of the at-fault defendants did not have the financial means to pay its share of the damages, a defendant could be stuck with paying a disproportionate share of the judgment relative to its degree of fault. This procedure worked to the benefit of plaintiffs, who could turn to any defendant to satisfy the whole judgment. Consider this example: The drivers of a Coca-Cola truck and an uninsured vehicle are found equally at-fault for causing a horrible highway accident resulting in the death of a minor child in a third vehicle. At trial the jury awards damages totaling $5,000,000 and a final judgment is entered in this amount. Under joint and several liability, the Coca-Cola company can be forced to satisfy the entire judgment, although the jury has decided that its driver was only 50% at-fault. With the elimination of joint and several liability by the Florida Legislature, plaintiffs can no longer rely on any defendant to satisfy the entire judgment. Under current law, in my example, Coca-Cola would have to pay $2,500,000 instead of the full $5,000,000 final judgment.

What about when a violent crime is committed and a negligent security case is brought against the property owner and/or party in possession of the property for failing to prevent the crime? As between the property owner/possessor and the perpetrator of the crime, does the property owner get a discount on its liability to the extent of the perpetrator’s role in the event? Thankfully, the answer is a resounding No.

Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993) is the Florida Supreme Court case that requires the allocation of fault among all negligent parties, including the plaintiff. The jury makes the determination and provides its answer on what is called the Jury Verdict Form. The verdict form will contain the name of everyone accused of being at-fault, even those not a party to the lawsuit, and the jury will determine the percentage of fault of each. Each defendant pays no more than its percentage of fault, regardless of whether or not any other at-fault defendant has the financial means to satisfy its share of the final judgment. No longer can the plaintiff look to one defendant to satisfy more than its share of a judgment.
Continue reading

by

Helpful tips to reduce identify theft:

  • Do not sign the back of your credit cards. Instead, put “PHOTO ID REQUIRED.”
  • When you are writing checks to pay on your credit card accounts, DO NOT put the complete account number on the “For” line. Instead, just put the last four numbers. The credit card company knows the rest of the number, and anyone who might be handling your check as it passes through all the check processing channels won’t have access to it.
  • Put your work phone # on your checks instead of your home phone. If you have a PO Box, use that instead of your home address. If you do not have a PO Box, use your work address. Never have your SS# printed on your checks. You can add it if it is necessary. But if you have It printed, anyone can get it.
  • Place the contents of your wallet on photocopy machine. Do both sides of each license, credit card, etc. You will know what you had in your wallet and all of the account numbers and phone numbers to call and cancel. Keep the photocopy in a safe place.
  • (Also carry a photocopy of your passport when traveling either here or abroad.)

Here is some important information to limit the damage in case your ID or identity are stolen:

  • Cancel your credit cards immediately. The key to this is having the toll free numbers and your card numbers handy so you know whom to call. Keep those where you can find them.
  • File a police report immediately in the jurisdiction where your credit cards, etc., were stolen. This proves to credit providers you were diligent, and this is a first step toward an investigation (if there ever is one).
  • Call the 3 national credit reporting organizations immediately to place a fraud alert on your name and also call the Social Security fraud line number. The alert means any company that checks your credit knows your information was stolen, and they have to contact you by phone to authorize new credit.

Here are the numbers you always need to contact with regard to your missing or stolen wallet:

  • Equifax: 1-800-525-6285 1-800-525-6285
  • Experian (formerly TRW): 1-888-397-3742 1-888-397-3742
  • Trans Union : 1-800-680 7289 1-800-680 7289
  • Social Security Administration (fraud line): (800) 269-0271 & (800) 269-0271

Continue reading

by

I voted for President Obama and fully expect to vote for him again in 2012. However, I am disappointed by one of his remarks delivered in the 2011 State of the Union message. In speaking about taking steps to improve the economy, the president mentioned that he is willing to work with the Republicans on medical malpractice reform legislation. I am hoping that his words were only rhetoric, chum if you will, to get a few cheers from the Republicans during the address, rather than an expression of his true intentions.

Among the lawyers who handle medical malpractice cases and know the realities of this practice area beyond the rhetoric, the word “deform” is substituted for the word “reform.” This is because the word “reform” suggests a good thing, while the word “deform” imparts a whole different meaning.

Make no mistake about it, the medical malpractice “reform” favored by Republicans is not a good thing for individuals harmed by serious medical mistakes. Their idea is to make it more difficult, if not completely impractical, for individuals harmed by medical negligence to seek redress through the civil justice system. I consider this a bad thing rather than a good thing, hence the use of the word “deform.”

For many years, powerful forces, in particular, the insurance industry, have pounded into the psyche of American society that our country faces a medical malpractice crisis. However, the truth is far different than the propoganda.
Continue reading

by

One of the principal reasons for business being conducted through a corporation, is for the officers, directors, managers, and shareholders of the corporation to be shielded from personal liability for the company’s failures and mistakes. Absent fraud or comingling, the so-called corporate shield is supposed to protect them from personal liability. This holds true for most business deals gone sour and accidents caused by corporate negligence such as by defective products.

To the surprise of many, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has a vehicle for piercing the corporate shield.

Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938 to create and maintain minimum standards of living for workers in industries engaged in interstate commerce. Section 202. Congress attempted to secure this goal, in part, by enacting a prohibition which generally mandated that individuals who work more than 40 hours in a week receive an overtime premium. In essence, the Act provides for the payment of overtime wages calculated at X-1/2 for all hours worked over 40 in a week.

Some employers try to skirt the law through creating a variety of false arrangements, however, the majority of those in violation only do so through innocent ignorance or misunderstanding. In piercing the corporate veil, the FLSA does not draw a distinction between intentional acts and innocent mistakes.
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