.

The Quarterly Dose

New Rules, New Risks: Florida’s Latest Health Care Legislation Explained

The Quarterly Dose – August 2025

August 1, 2025

by Megan J. Nelson

On July 1, 2025, the following laws were enacted and may affect health care providers in Florida. These legislative changes introduce updates to regulatory compliance, patient care protocols and provider responsibilities. This overview highlights key provisions and their practical implications for providers across the state.

HB 519 — Administration of Controlled Substances by Paramedics
The Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (Chapter 893, Fla. Stat.) allowed for specific licensed practitioners to authorize the administration of a controlled substance by a licensed nurse or an intern practitioner. It did not expressly include paramedics. Under federal law, the Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017 (PPAEMA) created specific rules relevant to the EMS setting, allowing for a paramedic to administer controlled substances outside the physical presence of a medical director if the EMS agency was authorized to do so by state law, was registered with the DEA, and had a standing order or verbal order from a medical director.

What the changes mean:
A licensed practitioner may now authorize a certified paramedic to administer controlled substances in the course of providing emergency services.

HB 647 —Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Services (APRN)
Advanced practice registered nurses were not authorized to file a death certificate or complete a medical certification of cause of death, unless they were registered for autonomous practice.

What the changes mean:
An advanced practice registered nurse providing hospice care may certify the cause of death and file the certificate of death.

SB 958 — Type 1 Diabetes Early Detection Program
This bill created § 381.992, Fla. Stat., and requires the Department of Health, in collaboration with school districts throughout the state, to develop Type 1 diabetes information material related to early detection for the parents and guardians of students. The material must include a description of Type 1 diabetes, the risk factors and warning signs associated with Type 1 diabetes, the process for screening students using a blood autoantibody test, and recommendations for further evaluation for students displaying warning signs or positive early detection screening results.

What the new law means:
Medical providers may see an increase in concerned parents wanting to discuss Type 1 diabetes. However, some parents may not be able to seek medical care due to financial and insurance reasons.

It may be beneficial for pediatricians to reach out to their local school districts and assist with providing additional education and/or workshops for parents.

HB 791 - Surrendered Infants
Section 383.50, Fla. Stat., allows parents to safely surrender infants up to 30 days of life at an emergency medical services station, fire station, or hospital without civil or criminal liability. Existing provisions related to the presumption that the parent intended to surrender the infant, consented to appropriate medical treatment and care, and to the termination of parental rights; the care and custodial processing of an infant upon lawful surrender; and the parent’s anonymity upon surrender remain in effect.

New additions to the law:
The new law extends the previous law to include the surrender of an infant using an infant safety device. An infant safety device is a device that is installed in a supporting wall of a hospital, an emergency medical services station, or a fire station and that has an exterior point of access allowing an individual to place an infant inside and an interior point of access allowing individuals inside the building to safely retrieve the infant.

The infant safety device must be:

  • Physically part of the hospital, emergency medical services station, or fire station and be in a conspicuous and visible area to employees;
  • Temperature controlled and ventilated;
  • Equipped with a dual alarm system which automatically triggers an alarm inside the building when an infant is placed in the device, and the alarm must be tested at least once a week;
  • Equipped with a surveillance system that allows for monitoring the inside of the device 24 hours a day; and 
  • Physically checked at least twice a day.

If the infant safety device is located at an emergency medical services station or fire station, the alarm must also immediately alert 911, and dispatch must send the nearest first responder to retrieve the infant.

HB 1089 — Newborn Screenings
Newborn screening is a preventive public health service provided in every state to identify, diagnose and manage newborns at risk for selected disorders that, without detection and treatment, can lead to permanent development and physical damage or death. The Florida Newborn Screening Program serves to promote the screening of all newborns for metabolic, hereditary and congenital disorders known to result in significant impairment of health or intellect. The program currently screens for 37 core conditions and 23 secondary conditions, nearly all of which are screened for through the collection and testing of blood spots. Hearing screening, critical congenital heart disease and targeted testing for congenital cytomegalovirus are completed at the birthing facility through point of care testing.

What the changes mean:
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) will be added to the Newborn Screening beginning January 1, 2027. DMD is a rare genetic condition, but it is also the most common childhood-onset form of muscular dystrophy. It affects approximately one in every 3,300—5,000 live male births. DMD is an X-linked inherited neuromuscular disorder that can be carried by females, but typically only presents symptomatically in boys. DMD is considered a lethal condition for which there is no curative treatment. However, early diagnoses and a multidisciplinary approach can slow the progression of the disease, prolong the survival rate and maintain a quality of life.

SB 1156 — Home Health Aide for Medically Fragile Children Program
The Home Health Aide for Medically Fragile Children (HHAMFC) Program was created in 2023 in response to the national health care provider shortage and its impact on medically fragile children and their family caregivers to provide an opportunity for family caregivers to receive training and gainful employment. Other Medicaid programs exist that pay a family member to provide home health services to a Medicaid enrollee, but the HHAMFC Program is the only one that pays a family member who is not a licensed nurse for the provision of home health services to a medically fragile child. The program allows a family caregiver to be reimbursed by Medicaid as an HHAMFC once they have completed an approved training program or graduated from an accredited pre-licensure nursing education program and are waiting to take the state licensing exam.

What the changes mean:
The HHAMFC must complete an approved training program, and the employing home health agency must provide validation of the HHAMFC prior to the aide providing services to an eligible relative. The employing home health agency must also provide training on HIV/AIDS and ensure that the HHAMFC holds and maintains a CPR certification.

The training program must consist of at least 76 total hours of training with at least 40 hours of home health aide training, 20 hours of skills training tailored to the needs of the child, 16 hours of clinical training related to the child’s needs, and training on HIV infections and CPR.

Increased the Medicaid utilization cap from eight hours per day to 12 hours per day.

Requires the home health agency to report an adverse incident within 48 hours of the incident.

HB 1195 — Fentanyl Testing
The bill created § 395.1042, Fla. Stat., and requires a hospital or hospital-based off-campus emergency department treating patients for possible drug overdose or poisoning to include testing for fentanyl in the urine drug screening. If the urine test is positive for fentanyl, a second analytical confirmation test must be performed. The results of the urine drug test and confirmation test must be retained as part of the patient’s medical record for the period of time required by the hospital’s current practice.

What the new law means:
Providers must include testing for fentanyl when a patient is suspected of a possible drug overdose or poisoning.

The addition of testing for fentanyl should not be limited to patients who are suspected of a possible drug overdose or poisoning. As fentanyl overdoses are becoming more common in patients who unknowingly take a substance that contains fentanyl, emergency medical providers should include testing for fentanyl when ordering any urine drug screening, including for patients who are disoriented or unconscious for unknown reasons.

HB 1353 — Home Health Care Services
What the changes mean:
An administrator may now manage up to five home health agencies that have the same controlling interest, regardless of where they are located in the state.

The initial admission visit, all service evaluation visits, and the discharge visit that a home health agency must provide may now be performed by a registered nurse who is contracted but not a direct employee of the home health agency.

HB 1421 — Improving Screening for and Treatment of Blood Clots
This bill aims to improve the screening for and treatment of venous thromboembolism or deep vein thrombosis (blood clots).

New additions to the law:
Every hospital with an emergency department and every ambulatory surgical center must develop and implement policies and procedures for the rendering of appropriate medical attention for patients at risk of forming blood clots.

All non-physician personnel must be trained on the policies and procedures annually. A certified nursing assistant (CNA) employed by a nursing home must undergo in-service training which includes recognizing the signs and symptoms of a blood clot and techniques for providing an emergency response.

A CNA wishing to administer medication, as delegated by a registered nurse, must complete training on identifying signs and symptoms of a blood clot and response protocols to assist a patient with a blood clot as part of the 34-hour training course on medication administration.

Assisted living facilities must provide a pamphlet to residents upon admission which contains information about risk factors for, and recognizing signs and symptoms of, a blood clot.

SB 1768 - Stem Cell Therapy
The new law, §§ 458.3245 and 459.0127, Fla. Stat., authorizes physicians to perform stem cell therapies that have not been approved by the FDA when used for orthopedic conditions, wound care or pain management. It sets forth standards for the retrieval, manufacture, storage and use of stem cells, ensuring the stem cells used are obtained from facilities that meet rigorous regulatory and accreditation requirements. Before administering any stem cell therapy, a physician must provide written notice to the patient that the therapy is not approved by the FDA and must obtain signed informed consent clearly informing the patient of the nature and purpose of the proposed treatment prior to initiation of therapy. Any advertisements must include clearly legible writing indicating the stem cell therapy is not approved by the FDA.

Who does the law not apply to:
Physicians who have obtained FDA approval for an investigational new drug or device for the use of human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products.

Physicians who perform stem cell therapy under an employment or other contract on behalf of an institution that is certified to perform stem cell therapy or has expertise in stem cell therapy as determined by the Department of Health.

Violations of the law:
A violation may subject the physician to disciplinary action by their regulating board.

A physician who willfully performs, or actively participates in, treatment or research using human cells or tissues derived from a fetus or embryo after abortion commits a felony of the third degree.

A physician who willfully performs, or actively participates in, the sale, manufacture or distribution of computer products created using human cells, tissues or cellular tissue-based products commits a felony of the third degree.

SB 1808 — Refund of Overpayments Made by Patients
This bill requires anyone who accepts payment from a patient’s insurance for services rendered by a health care practitioner and determines that a patient has overpaid for said services to refund the overpayment within 30 days. If a health care practitioner fails to timely refund the overpayment, the failure will constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a facility or provider licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration fails to timely refund an overpayment, the agency may impose an administrative penalty of up to $500 on the license.

HB 597 — Diabetes Management in Schools
Public schools may acquire and maintain a supply of undesignated glucagon for use on students with diabetes experiencing hypoglycemic emergencies. Public schools are authorized to obtain the glucagon through a prescription from a county health department or authorized healthcare practitioner, or through arrangements with manufacturers or suppliers. This will help decrease the delay in treatment as students with diabetes experiencing a hypoglycemic emergency can now be treated with glucagon even if they don’t have their own medication at school.

SB 1514 —Anaphylaxis in Public and Charter Schools
Schools may maintain a supply of epinephrine auto-injectors (epi-pens), accessible to trained school personnel or authorized students. They must adopt a physician-developed protocol for school personnel, medical and non-medical, who are trained to recognize an anaphylactic reaction and to administer an injection of epinephrine via auto-injection during emergencies. This will help decrease the delay in treatment as students who are experiencing an anaphylactic emergency can receive an injection of epinephrine via an auto-injector by a school nurse or other trained school employee, even if they don’t have their own epi-pen with them. 


 

The Quarterly Dose – August 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Adopts Traditionally More Expansive Concept of Occupational Causation

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.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Deemed Worker an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement; Insurer Estopped from Denying Coverage

In this case, the claimant filed a Claim Petition for injuries sustained on October 28, 2019, naming J&S as his Employer, and alleging that the injuries occurred when he fell from a ladder while installing a satellite dish for Dish Network. Dish Network contracted with J&S to install satellite dishes. Subsequently J&S filed a Petition to Join Brickstreet Insurance Company and the claimant filed a Claim Petition against the Uninsured Employer Guaranty Fund. The Fund then joined Dish Network as another employer.  Before the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), the claimant testified that he was hired in 2015 by J&S and at the time signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (IC Agreement). J&S defended the case on the basis that the claimant was not an employee, but was an independent contractor, even after the IC Agreement expired. Additional evidence showed that, at the time of the October 28, 2019, work injury, J&S’ workers’ compensation insurance with Brickstreet had lapsed, even though a Brickstreet agent had been working to renew J&S’ policy and had a Certificate for coverage from September 25, 2019 to September 25, 2020 issued, with Dish Network listed as the Certificate Holder. A renewal policy was not in effect at the time the Certificate was issued and the agent learned on October 25, 2019 that Brickstreet was not going to renew their policy with J&S, due to an unpaid premium.    Ultimately, the WCJ found that the claimant was an employee of J&S at the time of the work injury and that J&S did not have a workers’ compensation policy in place at the time, due to their failure to pay the renewal premium to Brickstreet. The WCJ also found Dish Network was a Statutory Employer under Section 302(a) of the Act. The Claim Petition and the Guaranty Fund Claim Petition were both granted, as was the Guaranty Fund’s Petition to Join Dish Network. The WCJ also denied J&S’ Petition to Join Brickstreet, finding that neither J&S or Dish Network showed that Brickstreet was estopped from denying coverage. J&S and Dish Network appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) and the Board affirmed. J&S and Dish Network appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court rejected J&S' argument that the claimant was an independent contractor. In doing so, the court noted that the claimant credibly testified that he worked for J&S full time, could not work for another company, and that J&S, scheduled his jobs, tracked him, and scheduled additional installations, if he finished early. Additionally, the court noted the claimant lacked discretion in the manner he performed his job, because all questions had to be referred to J&S.  As for Dish Network’s appeal, the court held that the WCJ erred in holding that Brickstreet was not estopped from denying coverage as to Dish Network. According to the court, the insurance agent was an authorized representative of Brickstreet and, at the direction of J&S, issued the Certificate of Insurance that he knew was not accurate at the time, and was aware would be presented as proof of coverage for J&S. Dish Network relied upon that information and continued to use J&S, ultimately leading to Dish Network being named as the Statutory Employer liable for payment of benefits because of J&S’ uninsured status. The court held that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ ’s conclusion that Dish Network did not establish that Brickstreet was equitably estopped from denying coverage, reversed the decision below, and remanded the case to the WCJ. 

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirmed Trial Judge’s Orders Granting Summary Judgement for Defendants on COVID-19 Case

In Dunne v. Advanced Subacute Rehab Servs. at Sewell, LLC, et al., the plaintiffs appealed from two Law Division orders. By way of background, Louis Doto, Sr. (Doto) worked for BP & SC Services, Inc. (BP). BP leased Doto to Advanced Subacute Rehabilitation Center at Sewell, LLC (Advanced Subacute) and it had control of his work, paid wages, and had the power to hire or fire him. A BP employee was assigned to the facility to train and supervise him and BP was responsible for securing workers’ compensation coverage. Doto worked as an aide in the laundry department. Linen from COVID-19 residents were delivered in clearly marked bags and he had no direct contact with residents. A co-worker, Sheila Smith, was also an aide and she never contracted COVID-19 at the facility. Advanced Subacute did not require Doto to wear an N-95 mask, but instead a surgical mask, though N-95 masks were available to all employees. He was also required to attend period mandatory meetings with other high-risk employees, the last of which he attended was in November 2020. All employees were required to test for COVID-19 and there were no reported cases from June to October 2020. On December 23, 2020, Doto tested positive for COVID-19 and passed away on January 18, 2021. The last member of housekeeping that Doto may have encountered tested positive 22 days earlier. After his death, OSHA found two “serious” violations concerning the N-95 masks worn by housekeepers. In response, Advanced Subacute fit tested all non-clinical staff. Doto’s estate filed a workers’ compensation claim and named both BP and Advanced Subacute as his employer. The estate received an award. In July 2022, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Law Division, alleging wrongful death and survivor causes of action. In October 2024, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing: 1) immunity pursuant to the Emergency Health Powers Act: 2) the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act; 3) Doto’s inability to establish infection at the facility; 4) net expert opinions by the plaintiffs’ expert; and 5) inadmissibility of the OSHA report. The plaintiffs opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing: 1) no immunity as Advanced Subacute engaged in gross negligent or willful misconduct; 2) no preclusion by the Workers’ Compensation Act as Doto was not Advanced Subacute’s employee; and 3) no net expert opinions. In February 2025, the judge issued a written decision granting the defendants’ motion. Specifically, he found Advanced Subacute’s COVID-19 immunity precluded the plaintiffs’ claim as no reasonable jury could find any gross negligence or utter disregard for Doto’s safety. He also addressed the other defenses for completeness. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and the judge issued another written decision denying the plaintiffs’ motion in April 2025. The plaintiffs then appealed both decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the orders for reasons stated by the judge in his written decisions. The Appellate Division only added: 1) Advanced Subacute acted consistently with the legislative grant of immunity; 2) there was no doubt Doto was an employee of both BP and Advanced Subacute and the latter may have inadvertently failed to follow some precautions; and 3) confirmed the plaintiffs’ experts did not identify a basis for their opinions. Ultimately, the Appellate Division found no reason to disturb the judge’s well-reasoned decisions and affirmed the judge’s orders.