Editor: Felicia Wymer, Partner, Pensacola Office
Author: Travis Coleman, Partner, Tampa Office
Lashunda Robinson vs. Sherpa Delivery Direct LLC/CBCS
JCC Anderson: Orlando District Order date: 08/12/2026
OJCC Case: 26-002264WWA Date of Accident: 01/07/2026
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Misrepresentation
Summary: Claimant alleged injury sustained 1/7/26 when she fell while delivering a package, resulting in injury to the left knee. In an initial recorded statement, the claimant reported a fall involving the left knee in December 2025 but denied injury to the left knee before 1/7/26. Compensability was initially accepted under the 120-day pay and investigate rule. The Claimant had an MRI of the left knee that showed a torn ACL and posterior horn of the medial meniscus. The claimant was recommended to undergo an arthroscopy of the left knee by the authorized physician. During deposition, the claimant denied problems with the left knee before the 1/7/26 work accident. She further denied any pain/soreness of the knee prior to 1/7/26 and denied undergoing any medical treatment for the left knee prior to 1/7/26. In deposition, the claimant denied prior falls involving the left knee except for a single fall in 2021 or 2022 but could not recall treating for same. The authorized physician, during deposition, testified that the claimant had been adamant during visits that she did not have prior problems with the left knee. Obtained medical records, however, showed that the claimant had been treated at the ER for left knee pain on 4 separation occasions, the most recent of which was 12/21/25, just 17 days before the alleged work accident, when the claimant was evaluated for nontraumatic left knee pain the claimant reported having “for a while.” The medical report also noted a fall earlier in 2025. The claimant had been diagnosed with osteoarthritis on at least two prior occasions. This medical history was also not provided to the Claimant’s IME physician. At Final Hearing, the clmt admitted to making false statements but attributed same to honest mistakes based on poor memory and failure to understand questions, not intentional misrepresentations. The JCC was not swayed and found that the Claimant had repeatedly denied prior treatment and while remote treatment in 2016 may have been easy to forget, treatment 17 days before the work accident was not, and thus found the claimant’s statements in her recorded statement, to the authorized physician, and to her IME physician sufficient to establish misrepresentation. All claims were denied.
__________________________________________________________________
James Floyd v. Superior Construction Co. Southeast, LLC/XL Specialty Ins. Co. and Sedgwick CMS
JCC Arthur: Tampa District Order date: 08/12/2026
OJCC Case: 25-031061RAA Date of Accident: 11/03/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: TPD
Summary: The claimant suffered neck and thoracic back injury after repeatedly operating a roller over gravel and uneven terrain on 11/3/25. Operation of the roller required repeated neck turning due to lack of mirrors. The accident/injuries were accepted as compensable and the injured worker treated with light duty restrictions until 12/29/25, when the claimant was released to full duty. He was placed at overall MMI on 2/16/26. The claimant continued to work in a light duty position with the insured working full hours for pre-injury pay until he was terminated on 12/13/25 for insubordination and lack of performance within 90 days of employment start. During light duty placement, the claimant was to watch safety videos on a laptop. He was seen repeatedly using his cell phone and, after checking progress, the employer found that the claimant had not completed a day’s worth of expected progress in nearly two weeks of working light duty. The employer alleged that the claimant, after being confronted regarding this, refused to continue watching the videos. The claimant denied this allegation. Because the claimant testified in person and his hearing testimony was consistent with prior depositions, the JCC found the claimant to be more credible regarding refusal than the employer representative. At the time of termination, the claimant was still on light duty restrictions. The employer alleged a voluntary limitation of income defense. To prevail on this defense, the employer must show that the claimant refused and continued to refuse available suitable light duty after termination. Because the claimant was involuntarily terminated, no such showing could be made. Accordingly, TPD benefits from 12/13/25 through the full duty release of 12/29/25 were awarded.
__________________________________________________________________
Jeremy Burchell v. Advantage Steel, Inc./Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company
JCC Grindal: Tampa District Order date: 08/20/2026
OJCC Case: 25-026551EBG Date of Accident: 10/07/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Aggressor Doctrine
Summary: The Claimant alleged injury to his right eye, head, neck, and left shoulder on 10/7/25 during an altercation with his brother, who was also an employee of the insured. The altercation occurred due to escalation of a disagreement regarding a workplace error made by the claimant’s brother the day prior to the altercation. The claimant seeks compensability of his injuries. The employer/carrier has denied compensability based on the aggressor doctrine, alleging that the claimant was the aggressor in the altercation. The claimant testified that he would never hit his brother, who has larger, because he would lose. The claimant also testified, however, that he could not remember the events leading up to the altercation, only that he was arguing with his brother, who was ten feet away, then he came to as he was being thrown into an industrial fan. The claimant also described his physical activity as severely limited, but was shown to have participated in a 5K after the workplace altercation, and there was social media documentation of physical activity arising above the level the claimant described, including dancing and doing the “Hulk Smash” at a convention the claimant attended after the work accident but prior to obtaining medical treatment. The claimant’s supervisor testified that he tried to separate the brothers and that, while the claimant’s brother walked away, the claimant did not and ultimately threw the first punch. After the claimant struck his brother in the neck/shoulder, the claimant’s brother punched back. The supervisor stated that the claimant was not thrown into an industrial fan at any point. Several other witnesses testified and, after considering all statements, the JCC found that the claimant’s description of the accident, his resulting injuries, and the severity of same lacked credibility. The JCC ruled the claim was not compensable pursuant to the aggressor doctrine and all other benefits were subsequently denied in accordance.
__________________________________________________________________
James Anthony Ettore v. Charter Communications, LLC, & ESIS
JCC Pitts: Orlando District Order date: 8/21/2026
OJCC Case: 26-001399NPP Date of Accident: 4/3/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Traveling Employee
Summary: The Claimant worked as a door-to-door salesman, selling products for internet, television, home, and cell phones. He was paid salary along with commission tied to the products sold. On the date of accident, the Claimant started his route at 10:53am in Sanford and finished his day at 8:33pm. At 8:04pm, the Claimant was in Casselberry, which is where the accident occurred. He was at this same location from 8:04pm-8:33pm, when his shift ended, and no other locations were logged on his work tablet. Based on testimony from the Employer, the location where the Claimant ended his shift was near a plaza, and not a residential address. Based on this information, the E/C denied compensability of the accident, arguing that the claimant was on a personal errand/had finished his work day and was not in the course and scope of employment at the time the MVA occurred. The Claimant testified that the motor vehicle accident occurred near a plaza. He further testified that he was at a red light intending to turn right heading toward a gated community to continue sales. While stopped at the light, his vehicle was rear-ended. The Claimant pulled his car into a plaza and exchanged information with the other driver. After leaving the accident scene, the Claimant went to nearby Crunch fitness to use the sauna and massage bed as he was not feeling well. The accident was reported both on the date of accident and the following day. Ultimately, the JCC found that the Claimant was still working when the accident occurred, as the claimant testified he was en route to another sales location when the MVA occurred. As the Claimant was actively engaged in his work duties, was required to travel for his job, was compensated salary during commute when the accident occurred, and was reimbursed for mileage when submitted, the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The JCC found this to be a compensable workplace accident.
__________________________________________________________________
Luis Rodriguez Hernandez v. Pizzerias, LLC, d/b/a Papa Johns & AmTrust
JCC Kerr: Miami District Order date: 9/1/2026
OJCC Case: 25-026536MGK Date of Accident: 10/10/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: E/C Paid Attorneys Fees
Summary: The Claimant worked as a delivery driver and was injured when the delivery car ran over his foot. The Claimant spent over a month in the hospital and subsequent rehabilitation center, with bills totaling almost $200,000. The claim was initially denied, though it was later accepted 6 months after the accident. Multiple petitions were filed during the duration of claim denial. After the 30-day period for attorney’s fees to attach had passed, the Employer/Carrier agreed to provide requested medical and indemnity benefits listed in the pending Petitions. After the Employer/Carrier stipulated to attorney’s fees and costs entitlement, Claimant’s counsel filed his verified motion for attorney’s fees seeking $50,000 in fees and $2,973.26 in costs, alleging 98.1 hours were spent in securing benefits. The Employer/Carrier agreed to the costs but said the attorney’s fee should be between $17,972.50 and $22,120.00, cutting the hours to 55.3. The Employer/Carrier argued that a reasonable hourly rate is $325 for Attorney Mora, and $400 for Attorney Touby. Claimant argues that both attorneys should be paid $400 to $500 per hour. The JCC found that attorney Touby, began practicing in 2002, is board-certified, and is a partner of the firm should be paid $450.00 per hour. Attorney Mora would have been awarded $400 per hour based on the complexity of litigation and volume of same. However, as there was no indication of which attorney performed which task, the JCC found the appropriate rate to be $425 for all entries. Based on the time sheets, the JCC awarded $34,977.50 in fees in addition to the agreed upon costs.
__________________________________________________________________