FL Case Law Summaries – 11/30/15
BY:
1ST DCA ORDERS
Francisco Gobel v. American Airlines/Sedgwick CMS
Appeal of the Order from JCC Gerardo Castiello
DCA Order Date: November 24, 2015
Case: 1D15-2374; D/A: 7/25/2010
Appellant’s Counsel: Mark L. Zientz & Toni Villaverde
Appellee’s Counsel: Clinton C. Lyons
Briefly: STIPULATED LITIGATION COSTS – The 1st DCA reversed the JCC’s order denying stipulated litigation costs of $200 to be paid by the Employer/Carrier and found Rule 60Q-6.123(5) only applies to settlements under F.S. §440.20(11), a washout agreement.
Summary: The 1st DCA held that the stipulation in this case is for Employer/Carrier-paid costs following a successful pursuit of a claim for medical benefits by the claimant. The parties stipulated to attorney’s fees and costs and submitted a stipulation for approval to the JCC. The JCC denied the stipulation because no supporting documentation describing the costs was provided. The claimant argued that no documentation was necessary under Rule 60Q-6.123(5) if the amount of the costs is $250 or less. However, the DCA pointed out that 60Q-6.123(5) only applies to settlements under F.S. §440.20(11), a washout agreement. In contrast, the stipulation in this case is for Employer/Carrier-paid costs with no requirement that the agreed upon costs be justified or detailed. The DCA held that such matters are governed by the law of contracts and settlement, with no specialized rules.
JCC ORDERS
Julie Huffman v. Steak N Shake/Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
JCC Pitts; Orlando District; Order Date: November 24, 2015
OJCC Case: 15-020191NPP; D/A: 3/17/2015
Claimant’s Counsel: David Mallen
Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Alan D. Kalinoski
Briefly: MOTION FOR ADVANCE – JCC Pitts denied the Motion for Advance and noted a recent final evidentiary order in this case determined that the claimant had knowingly made objectively false, fraudulent or misleading statements in which the JCC denied workers’ compensation benefits.
Summary: The JCC was compelled to deny the advance because the greater weight of the evidence established that the claimant had violated the provisions of F.S. §440.105 and F.S. §440.09, and therefore has forfeited her rights to any further benefits for this date of accident, including the right to an otherwise allowable advance.
Pedro Rodriguez v. Carolina Mechanical/Arrowpoint Capital
JCC Almeyda; Miami District; Order Date: November 25, 2015
OJCC Case: 02-005889MGK; D/A: 11/30/2001
Claimant’s Counsel: William Souza
Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Kurt Wirsing
Briefly: PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS – JCC Almeyda granted the claim for permanent total disability benefits for this November 2001 date of accident and found the claimant satisfied steps #1, #2, #4, and #5 required for Social Security Disability eligibility.
Summary: The JCC found that the exertional limitations are less than sedentary and that the claimant is unemployable. The JCC found that the claimant established a prima facie case for permanent total disability and that the Employer/Carrier failed to present sufficient evidence of employability. The JCC accepted the claimant’s vocational expert as more credible and thoroughly analyzed than the expert provided by the Employer/Carrier.
With regard to maximum medical improvement, the JCC found that the claimant is at maximum medical improvement from the effects of the workers’ compensation injury, and that any weight loss program is speculative without a reasonable anticipation of improvement.