Finally a win for the Employer/Servicing Agent/Carrier. No more games of “gotcha” by some claimants’ attorneys trying to get the Employer/Servicing Agent/Carrier to fail to respond within five days to a request for a one-time change. Our law firm had litigated this issue before a Judge of Compensation Claims and actually prevailed. The case was…

The recent Fist District Court of Appeal case of Suarez v. Steward Enterprises and Travelers, Inc. Co., (Case No. 1D14-3495; May 12, 2015), restricts the fee an EMA can charge for his/her deposition.  In such case, the claimant scheduled the deposition of Dr. Rozencwaig and was advised that the fee would be $750.00 per hour. …

The recent First District Court of Appeal case of Limith v. Lenox on the Lake, Case No. 1D14-3761 (April 17, 2015) holds that where a Petition for Benefits is dismissed reserving jurisdiction on attorney’s fees and costs, the Employer/Servicing Agent can move to dismiss such claim for fees under the authority of Section 440.25(4)(i) which…

Based on the written opinion in the recent case of Daniel Stahl v. Hialeah Hospital and Sedgwick CMS, (Case No. 1D14-3077 March 25, 2015), we can expect that there will be a constitutional challenge raised in the Florida Supreme Court.  In this case, the First District Court of Appeal issued a written opinion based on…

Now it appears clear that once compensability has been adjudicated or stipulated to, the Employer/Carrier/Servicing Agent has the burden of proof that there is no causal connection between the injury and the requested benefit. In other words, we are dealing with two issues here. The claimant has to prove that the work accident is the…

Based on the recent case of Cortes-Martinez v. Palmetto Vegetable Co, (Case No. 1D14-1825 March 10, 2015), as many times as possible.  Judges in South Florida were interpreting Section 440.24 to mean that once benefits had been secured and a past due attorney fee was paid using the 20/15/10 formula, any future attorney’s fees should…

The answer is yes in certain circumstances.  We were recently involved in a case involving a physician who took over the care of an injured worker when the injured worker’s long standing treating physician retired.  As most physician now require, the new physician wanted to charge an initial fee in excess of the fee schedule…

The recent case of Holl v. UPS and Liberty Mutual, stands for the proposition that the 2002 version of the statute dealing with a limitation of 401 weeks of benefits also applies to Temporary Total Disability Benefits.  Section 440.15(3)(c) which was in effect in 2002, provides that “[t]he employee’s eligibility for temporary benefits, impairment income…

Based on the recent case of Brevard County School Board v. Acosta, it appears that the Hindrance to Recovery Doctrine is not affected by the Major Contributing Cause standard.  In this case, the claimant needed both a surgery to the right shoulder which was work related and a surgery to the left shoulder which was…

We recently obtained a ruling that a request for a one time change of physician contained in a four page Grievance Letter was not clear and unequivocal. The claimant’s attorney argued that the four page Grievance Letter faxed to the carrier was sufficient notice of the request for a one time change, and because the…

logo-footer

STAY CONNECTED WITH US: