Editor: Felicia Wymer, Partner, Pensacola Office
Author: Travis Coleman, Partner, Tampa Office
Author: Katie Valley, Associate, Jacksonville Office
Jacqueline Badillo v. C.M.T.G. Inc., d/b/a McDonalds/Travelers Indemnity Company of America
JCC Medina-Shore: Miami District Order date: 05-20-2026
OJCC Case: 19-018311SMS Date of Accident: 06-25-2019
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: 120 Day Rule
Summary: The Claimant was injured while working for the Employer on June 25, 2019. She was cleaning the floor when a mop bucket handle swung into her face and head, which resulted in a cervical strain, radiculopathy, and post-concussion syndrome. After requesting a one-time change, the claimant began to treat with Dr. Vanni, who she had seen previously for a preexisting cervical condition that dated back to 2013. Dr. Vanni performed a C3-C7 cervical fusion on February 24, 2021, to address the preexisting condition. On November 23, 2021, Dr. Vanni’s diagnoses were status post cervical spinal fusion; cervical myelopathy; cervical radiculopathy; and cervical spinal stenosis. On April 28, 2022, Dr. Vanni created an addendum to his November 23, 2021 medical report indicating the Claimant’s work injury was an exacerbation of her preexisting condition and she reached MMI as of November 23, 2021. In his deposition taken on January 17, 2023, Dr. Vanni opined no further treatment related to the Claimant’s work accident was recommended, and that all follow-up care should be related to her pre-existing condition, not her work accident. The E/C authorized and paid for visits with Dr. Vanni on November 5, 2024, x-rays performed on February 3, 2025, and a visit with Dr. Vanni on March 18, 2025. On November 10, 2025, the claimant filed a petition for a return visit to Dr. Vanni. The E/C denied this claim and issued a DWC-12 based on Dr. Vanni’s 2023 deposition testimony that all future care would be for the Claimant’s preexisting condition. The JCC found that the claimant was entitled to a follow-up appointment with Dr. Vanni, because the E/C did not elect to “pay and investigate” and issue a 120-day letter. Thus, the E/C was deemed to have accepted the Claimant’s post cervical spinal fusion condition as compensable.
__________________________________________________________________
Stanley Estil v. Landscape Service Professionals, LLC/Federated Mutual Insurance
JCC Lewis: Ft. Lauderdale District Order date: 05-29-2026
OJCC Case: 24-025840DAL Date of Accident: 09-23-2024
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Penalties and Interest on Settlement Proceeds
Summary: On September 23, 2024, the claimant injured two of the fingers on his left hand in a compensable work accident. On May 6, 2025, an Order Approving Motion for Approval of Attorney’s Fees was entered for a total settlement of $1,000.00. In addition, the parties entered into a separate Joint Stipulation Resolving Outstanding Issues. By the terms of that Joint Stipulation, the employer/carrier agreed to pay to the claimant the additional sum of $5,000 as a compromise resolution of indemnity benefits and to pay claimant’s counsel an attorney’s fee and costs in the amount of $6,500.00. The Order Approving the Joint Stipulation Resolving Outstanding Issues was entered on May 9, 2025. On May 13, 2025, the adjuster on the claim inadvertently mailed both checks to the claimant attorney’s former mailing address. She testified that she took the address from the settlement documents, where the claimant’s attorney had signed his name over his old address in the signing block. When the claimant attorney notified the E/C that he had not received the checks, the checks were reissued and sent to claimant attorney’s new address. The claimant argued that the JCC did not have jurisdiction to consider the parties’ Settlement Agreement or contract because such document is not customarily submitted to the JCC for approval. The JCC disagreed, and cited Tejeda vs. City of Hialeah, which held that the JCC may be required to interpret a contract to determine the parties’ rights and responsibilities under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant testified that he understood the waiver of penalties and interest provision in the Settlement Agreement and Release to mean that he was only waiving interest and penalties up until the date of the Agreement. The JCC agreed but noted that the inquiry did not stop there. The JCC continued by noting that per case law, section 440.20(11)(c), Fla. Stat., precludes a statutory basis for an award of penalties and interest on lump sum settlements, because the amount payable under a washout settlement entered into by a represented claimant is not an award of compensation. And while a represented claimant was not precluded from negotiating for the payment of settlement proceeds within a particular time period or from negotiating for an increased benefit should the payment be late, here, the parties did not do so. The JCC held that no interest of penalties were due on the late payment of the settlement proceeds (It should be noted that there was no 14-day language in the settlement order). The claimant further argued that the case law the JCC relied on regarding the settlement proceeds would not apply to the parties’ separate Joint Stipulation Resolving Outstanding Issues. While the JCC agreed, it was restated that the settlement agreement was signed by claimant’s counsel over his prior address. Although the Joint Stipulation was prepared by counsel for the employer/carrier, claimant’s counsel did not change or correct the address listed under his signature on the Joint Stipulation to reflect his current address. Therefore, the employer/carrier was entitled to rely on the address as reflected in the parties’ Joint Stipulation or agreement. The claim for PICA was dismissed.
__________________________________________________________________
Linwood Gorham v. Jet Blue Airways/Sedgwick
JCC Case: West Palm Beach District Order date: 6/1/2026
OJCC Case: 23-018597BKC Date of Accident: 3/29/2023
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Contested Attorneys Fees
Summary: The Employer/Carrier filed a Motion to Compel Verified Fee Petition for Fees and Costs, which was granted. Previously, the Employer/Carrier stipulated to entitlement to fees and costs arising from the July 26, 2023 PFB, but not for any other PFBs. Claimant, however, asserts entitlement for the February 15, 2024, PFB as well. The February 15, 2024, PFB requested a follow-up with Dr. Panchal and an MRI. No response was filed within 14 days, which operates as a denial. In April 2024, the Claimant was informed of a follow-up appointment, and the MRI was scheduled for June 2024. As the benefits were provided more than 30 days after the PFB was filed, fee entitlement was established. The Employer/Carrier did not stipulate to fee entitlement until May 26, 2026 (the day before this hearing). Accordingly, Claimant was entitled to her time expended in proving entitlement to the fee arising from the February PFB. The JCC found that the Claimant spent a total of 152.9 hours to secure $87,167.73 in medical benefits. Considering the amount of litigation in the claim as the Employer/Carrier raised a misrepresentation defense, the JCC ultimately awarded the Claimants Attorney $375 per hour, for 152.9 hours of time, totaling $57,337.50 in attorneys’ fees, and $3,314.66 in costs.
__________________________________________________________________
Cesar Montejo v. Minagi Roofing, Inc/American Interstate Insurance Co.
JCC Holley: Jacksonville District Order date: 6/5/2026
OJCC Case: 25-020282WRH Date of Accident: 8/7/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Undocumented Worker / Fraud
Summary: The Claimant testified in his deposition that his contact person with the Employer was Yariel and labeled Yariel his supervisor. Yariel’s office was used for completion of required documents/paperwork by the Claimant, Yariel provided transportation to the Claimant, and Yariel distributed paychecks. Claimant did not have any contact with anyone else with the Employer. During his deposition, the Claimant testified to not having a SSN, driver’s license, work permit, or any other documentation authorizing him to work in the US. The Claimant also testified that he was not asked to provide a SSN when he was hired. There was no evidence presented that the Employer was aware of the Claimant’s immigration status at the time of hire, or if they even inquired as to his status. After the accident, the Employer/Carrier initially accepted the accident under the 120-day pay-and-investigate provision. However, after the Claimant’s deposition, the claim was denied due to the Claimant not being authorized to work in the US. The legal basis was fraud in attempt to obtain employment. The Legal and Safety Officer with the Employer, Ms. Leah Minnucci, was deposed in this claim twice. During the deposition, Ms. Minnucci testified that she ordinarily manages the hiring process independently, however she was not present on the date that the Claimant was hired. She gave two different answers as to who conducted the hiring of the Claimant. Ultimately, the JCC found her testimony to be inconsistent and evasive between the two depositions. Turning to Section 440.105(4)(b)(9), the Employer/Carrier must establish a false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or written statement. No testimony was provided during the hearing, and no evidence was presented regarding an oral or written statement. Additionally, the JCC found that the Employer conducted no verification of documentation and employed a transient workforce – many of whom don’t speak English. Accordingly, the JCC awarded TPD benefits from September 18, 2025, to April 16, 2026.
__________________________________________________________________
Gregory Scott Cash v. MCE Services Group/AmTrust
JCC Walker: Pensacola District Order date: 6/22/2026
OJCC Case: 25-000195JW Date of Accident: 8/9/2024
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Average Weekly Wage
Summary: The Claimant’s wife owns MCE Services Group, company that provides technical assistance to a number of corporate customers. During the Claimant’s employment, he stepped in a hole and fell causing left foot pain. About three months later, the Claimant was involved in an MVA while traveling to his authorized podiatrist. He was not cited as he lost control when his car hydroplaned. The Carrier did not authorize treatment for this MVA for six-months. The Carrier asserted a misrepresentation defense, as the Claimant created an AWW of $1200 based on a wage statement that his wife signed. Payroll records were also created showing payments of $1200 per week, but bank records did not corroborate this amount. Additionally, DWC-19s were completed showing continued earnings which were unsupported by bank records. The Carrier contends that these documents were created to support his indemnity claims. However, there were no indemnity claims heard during the hearing. Additionally, the medical reports kept the Claimant at full duty, and the Claimant continued working to keep his wife’s business operating. Further complicating the misrepresentation defense, despite the Claimant’s wife owning the business, the evidence showed that the Claimant runs the day-to-day operations as General Manager. In that role, he handles payroll for the company. During the Claimant’s deposition, he testified that his bank account is used for both personal and business purposes. He records his wages in QuickBooks which provides a W-2 tax form at the end of the year. In fact, the company does not write physical payroll checks, as other employees are paid via Cash App. Adding another layer to this hearing, the Employer was represented by separate counsel from the Carrier. The Employer’s counsel argued in favor of the Claimant’s AWW calculation, as it was supported by the company’s accounting and information provided to the IRS for tax purposes. The JCC ultimately denied the misrepresentation defense and granted all requested benefits aside from a CT scan that was previously completed.
__________________________________________________________________