Workers’ Compensation
Presented by Tod Stupski
Bureau Chief
Division of Risk Management, Workers’ Compensation Prepared by Administrative Assistant – Linda Cyr
Castellanos
Westphal V. City of St. Petersburg 122 So. 3d 440 (FLA 1st DCA 2013)
Westphal
 Florida Supreme Court Deciding “gap” in coverage issue
 Westphal I and II
 Effect on your Claims
Elsa Padgett V. State of Florida
(11‐13661 CA 25 11th Judicial Circuit)
 Miami Circuit Judge rules Chapter 440 unconstitutional  No Controversy
 Unique Appellate Court Review
Castellanos v. Next Door Co. 124 So.3d 392(Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
 2003 limitations on hourly Fees
 Murray decision
 Castellanos decision
 Pending in Florida Supreme Court
 Effect on Claim Costs
Caceres V. Sedano’s Supermarkets 138 So3d 1224 (Fla 1st DCA 2014)
 Repetitive Trauma
 Late Reporting Issues
 Effect on Claims
Brevard County V. Acosta 141 So.3d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
 Hindrance to recovery doctrine
 Claimants attempted to provide left shoulder repair to assist the recovery of the right shoulder that was injured at work
 Court held the hindrance to recovery doctrine is not applicable for “incidental” benefits.
 Usually associated with weight loss, smoking and diabetes. Hernando County Sheriff’s Office V. Sikalos 141 So.3d 1236 (FLA 1st DCA 2014)
 Prohibits carriers from taking an offset for in line disability payments for dates of accidents after July 1, 2011
 Held that since employees pay 3% of their salary into the fund providing in line disability payments, employees are paying for compensation benefits which is prohibited by statue.
 Significant effect on claim costs
 Prospective Application
Levy County Sheriff’s Office V. Allen 140 So.3d 1150 (Fla 1st DCA 2014)
 Course and scope of employment expanded to thinking but not taking actions
Gil V. Cargo Force 141 So.3d 253 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2014)
 Non Compliant only allows cutting off benefits during the period of non compliance Giaimo v. Florida Autosport 154 So3d. 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
 Daubert test to apportionment, under Daubert , expert opinion must be based on:
1. Sufficient facts or data
2. Testimony is product of reliable principals or methods
3. These principals and methods are applied reliably to the facts of the case
 Major effect on apportionment and major contributors cause. Morales V. Zenith Insurance Company
152 So.3d 557 (Fla. 2014)
 Upheld exclusive remedy provisions of the workers’ Compensation law
City of Ft. Pierce V. Spence 155 So3d 1197(Fla 1st DCA 2015)
 Held that preexisting conditions that include normal aging process can be used to determine major contributor cause
 Generally preexisting problems must have generally the need for medical treatment. Prior Concepts
Blake v. Merck
 Provides three avenues to establish PTD
 Can be PTD even if employee can perform sedentary work.
Temporary Benefits
 Misconduct must be severe
 Lack of psychiatric MMI provides opportunities for T.P. even in the absence of work restrictions