Blake devotes his practice to the defense of employers and insurance carriers in claims and appeals arising under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act as well as claims brought under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
Blake is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Workers’ Compensation, a designation he earned in 2013. He is experienced in workers’ compensation law dealing with the analysis and litigation of problems or controversies arising out of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law.
In addition to his practice that extends throughout the state of Florida, Blake is also licensed to practice law in North Carolina. He represents many insurance carriers and third party administrators. Additionally, he lectures on various topics concerning state and federal workers’ compensation claims.
An active member of the Jacksonville Bar Association, Blake currently serves as the co-chair of the Social Security and Workers' Compensation Law Committee. He previously served as co-chair of the Workers’ Compensation Section. Blake also proudly served as Co-Chair for the Friends of 440 Scholarship Fund between 2010 and 2012 and helped coordinate numerous fundraising events for the purpose of raising scholarship funds for the organization.
When not working, Blake enjoys spending his time with his wife and daughter, cooking, reading and playing classical guitar.
Thought Leadership
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Florida Appeals Court Holds Guardianship Expenses Necessary to Secure Workers’ Compensation Benefits Are Recoverable
October 20, 2026
The First District Court of Appeal reversed a Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC) order denying reimbursement of guardianship-related expenses, including court costs and attorney's fees. The claimant in the Fish case was the mother and court-appointed guardian of the injured worker, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in a compensable workplace accident after being struck by a motor vehicle while operating a utility vehicle along a highway. The claimant retained a workers' compensation attorney to pursue benefits on her son's behalf, and multiple Petitions for Benefits (PFBs) were filed. The attorney subsequently requested that the employer/carrier (E/C) assist in obtaining a guardian for the injured worker, but the E/C declined. The attorney then filed a Motion to Appoint Guardian and requested that the claimant be designated as the payee for workers' compensation benefits. Following a hearing, the JCC denied the request because no PFBs were pending and no compensation awards had been issued at that time. Nevertheless, the JCC found that the appointment of a guardian was both appropriate and necessary and directed the claimant to pursue guardianship proceedings in circuit court. To comply with the JCC's directive, the claimant retained a guardianship attorney, who filed a petition for guardianship in circuit court. The guardianship proceedings required various court costs, examination expenses, and attorney's fees. After the circuit court entered an order appointing the claimant as guardian, the workers' compensation attorney filed a PFB seeking reimbursement of the guardianship expenses, as well as attorney's fees and costs under Chapter 440. The JCC denied reimbursement for both the guardianship expenses and the guardianship attorney's fee, along with fees and costs incurred in litigating the reimbursement claim. The JCC reasoned primarily that the expenses and legal services were incurred exclusively in the guardianship proceeding rather than the workers' compensation proceeding. The First District rejected that reasoning. Relying on prior precedent, the court reiterated that guardianship expenses are recoverable when incurred in connection with the handling of a claimant's rights, duties, and responsibilities under Chapter 440. The court emphasized that recoverable workers' compensation expenses are not limited to services performed directly before a JCC. Rather, they include expenses and attorney's fees that are inherently linked to the workers' compensation claim and necessary to secure benefits, even when those services are performed outside a formal workers' compensation proceeding. Although a JCC lacks authority to oversee the guardianship proceeding itself or award fees within that action, the court explained that, once the circuit court awards guardianship fees and costs, the JCC has authority to determine what portion of those expenses are recoverable because they are inherently connected to the workers' compensation case. Accordingly, the First District reversed the JCC's order and remanded the case with instructions to award reimbursement of the guardianship expenses and to address the remaining claim for attorney's fees and costs incurred in litigating the reimbursement issue before the JCC.
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Florida Supreme Court Adopts Traditionally More Expansive Concept of Occupational Causation
September 22, 2026
The Florida Supreme Court issued a significant decision rebuking the First District Court of Appeal (1st DCA) in the high-profile case of Bouayad v. Normandy Insurance Co., a case addressing the compensability of workplace injuries resulting from assaults by third-party tortfeasors. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found the claimant was entitled to workers' compensation benefits, relying in part on the Florida Supreme Court's earlier decision in Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria from 1980. In Strother, the Court upheld an award of benefits to a cashier who was assaulted and robbed by individuals who followed her home from work under the mistaken belief that she was carrying restaurant cash deposits. In Bouayad, the 1st DCA concluded that the claimant's injuries were not compensable because they did not arise out of his employment. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the 1st DCA applied too narrow an interpretation of the "arising out of employment" requirement. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed a broader and more traditional view of occupational causation than that recently adopted by the 1st DCA. The claimant in Bouayad was the general manager of a car rental business operating from a hotel near an airport. Around midnight, while walking along a covered outdoor walkway from the hotel's atrium, where the rental kiosk was located, to an office near the pool, he was shot multiple times by an unidentified assailant. As part of his regular duties, the claimant carried rental agreements and cash receipts from the kiosk to the office at the end of each shift. After the shooting, the claimant managed to return to the hotel atrium, where he stated that he believed "Robert" had shot him, referring to an individual who had threatened the claimant's son the previous day. The assailant, however, was never identified. Consequently, the Supreme Court analyzed the case as involving an unknown third party while the claimant was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The central issue therefore was whether the injury "arose out of" the claimant’s employment. At the final hearing, the claimant presented evidence regarding the risks and hazards associated with his employment, including the nature of his duties, his late-night work schedule, and the location of the business in a high-turnover hotel near a major airport. His expert opined that these factors exposed him to an increased risk of becoming the victim of a crime while at work. In contrast, the employer/carrier's expert characterized the shooting as a targeted attack rather than a robbery and asserted that the risk of violent crime was actually higher near the claimant's residence than at the hotel. Based on that analysis, the expert concluded that the claimant was not exposed to an increased workplace risk. The 1st DCA focused narrowly on the specific activity the claimant was performing at the moment of injury. According to the court, the claimant's “work performed” at the time of the shooting was simply "walking" between two employer-operated locations, and that act of walking did not itself cause the injury. The Florida Supreme Court found this analysis far too myopic and inconsistent with decades of workers' compensation precedent. Reaffirming longstanding principles of workplace causation, the Court explained that the proper inquiry is not whether the precise physical task being performed at the moment of injury directly caused the harm. Rather, the relevant question is whether the employment, viewed as a whole, exposed the worker to risks and hazards that contributed to the injury. The decision is significant because it reinforces a broader conception of work-relatedness in the “arising out of” compensability analysis. Instead of limiting the causation analysis to the employee's discrete physical activity at the time of injury, courts must consider the totality of the employment circumstances, including the employee's duties, work environment, hours, and occupational risks. Under that framework, an injury may arise out of employment when the employment places the employee in a position of increased hazard, even if the specific task being performed at the moment of injury is not itself the direct cause of the harm.
