Tampa
Our firm established its first office in Florida in Tampa in April 2000. Since that time, the office has experienced consistent growth. Currently, the attorneys in our Tampa office handle professional liability, product liability, and property and casualty claims.
Our office is located in the heart of downtown Tampa, within walking distance of the Hillsborough County and federal courthouses. From this location, we are able to provide legal services to our clients in the Northern, Middle, and Southern Federal District Courts, as well as the counties of Citrus, Sumter, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, Hardee, Sarasota, DeSoto, Highlands, Glades, Charlotte and Lee.
Thought Leadership
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Employer/Carriers Must Explicitly Invoke Right to Deny Claim Under “Pay and Investigate” Statutory Provision; Employes Must Always Prove Medical Necessity of Treatment
July 16, 2026
Koren v. City of Kissimmee/PGCS, ___So.3d___(Fla 1st DCA 6/10/26) The majority opinion in Koren holds that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) properly denied psychiatric treatment because the claimant did not challenge on appeal the JCC’s finding that the requested treatment was not medically necessary. However, Judge K. Thomas authored a detailed concurrence agreeing with the result on the ground that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proving medical necessity. In doing so, Judge K. Thomas also emphasized an important principle: employer/carriers must expressly invoke the 120-day pay-and-investigate provision under Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act if they intend to preserve their right to deny compensability. Merely authorizing evaluations, without explicitly invoking the 120-day rule, may be insufficient to preserve the right to deny compensability of specific injuries. In Koren, the claimant sustained injuries to his upper lip, tooth, right knee, and right foot when a board gave way on a deck he was repairing for the employer/carrier. The accident was accepted as compensable, and multiple specialists were authorized to treat his physical injuries, including an ear, nose, and throat physician, dentist, orthopedist, and plastic surgeon. The claimant later sought psychiatric treatment and attended an independent medical examination (IME) with a psychiatrist. The IME diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, opining that the condition was caused by “the actual appearance of the scar” resulting from the industrial accident. The IME recommended continued medication, including an antidepressant, as well as follow-up care with a psychiatrist and psychologist. Critically, however, the IME did not offer an opinion regarding the medical necessity of this treatment. The claimant then filed a petition for benefits attaching the IME report and requesting authorization of psychiatric care. The employer/carrier responded by authorizing a psychiatrist, whom the claimant did, in fact, see. However, the employer/carrier neither denied the claim nor issued written notice invoking the 120-day pay-and-investigate provision. The authorized psychiatrist subsequently opined that the claimant’s psychiatric condition was unrelated to the industrial accident and instead attributable to prior employment as a law enforcement officer and volunteer firefighter. The psychiatrist further concluded that the work accident was not the major contributing cause of the condition. Although the employer/carrier stipulated to the authorization of the psychiatrist, it ultimately denied the claimant’s entitlement to psychiatric treatment. The JCC denied the requested benefit. The majority opinion affirmed on the narrow ground that medical necessity had not been established. Judge K. Thomas’s concurrence, however, expands on the legal framework. Under Florida law, an employer/carrier presented with a claim must “pay, pay and investigate, or deny.” To avail itself of the 120-day pay-and-investigate protection, the employer/carrier must affirmatively and explicitly invoke that option, typically through a written 120-day letter. The statutory investigative period does not arise automatically upon the provision of care. Furthermore, an attempt to characterize authorization as a “one-time evaluation” does not avoid waiver, as even a single evaluation may constitute the provision of a compensable benefit. By authorizing psychiatric care without invoking the 120-day provision, the employer/carrier in Koren effectively accepted compensability of the claimant’s PTSD condition. Nonetheless, it retained the ability to contest entitlement to ongoing treatment. While the employer/carrier failed to demonstrate a break in the causal chain, the claimant still bore the burden of proving that the requested treatment was medically necessary. Because the JCC found that the claimant failed to meet this burden, and the claimant did not challenge that finding either below or on appeal, the denial of psychiatric benefits was ultimately affirmed.
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Workers’ Compensation Decision Clarifies that Out‑of‑State Family Visits Don’t Meet Medical Necessity Standard
June 8, 2026
Purple Pride, Inc. v. Burgess, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D479 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 18, 2026), reh'g denied (Mar. 31, 2026) The claimant suffered a work-related motor vehicle accident in 2019 that caused him to become tetraplegic (or quadriplegic), requiring around-the-clock attendant care. In 2024, the claimant filed a petition for benefits, requesting certain attendant care benefits he felt were necessary to allow him to take a trip to visit family in New York. The benefits he sought included the extra cost of traveling attendants, including their overtime pay and accommodations, and the extra cost of renting a Hoyer lift, commode chair, and other durable medical equipment (DME) needed for the trip. The employer/carrier denied the request as not being medically necessary. The claimant obtained an opinion from the treating psychotherapist that a visit to see family in New York would improve claimant's mental health. The psychotherapist opined that the trip was “medically necessary” in the sense that it could improve claimant's symptoms related to depression and anxiety. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) rejected the claimant’s position that the trip to New York itself was medically necessary under the definition of medical necessity in § 440.13(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (2024). However, the JCC found that the employer/carrier should nonetheless be required to pay for the additional costs the claimant would incur to travel with the attendants and DMEs. In the JCC's view, the employer/carrier should cover those costs anywhere, pursuant to “the maxim that industry is responsible for what industry causes.” The First District Court of Appeal set aside the JCC’s order and held that because the JCC concluded that the claimant's trip to New York was not medically necessary, it was error to require the employer/carrier to pay for the additional medical benefits he sought for the trip. The court explained that “transportation other than to a doctor” reflects on quality of life rather than medical necessity and is “generally considered gratuitous and not compensable.” Therefore, the JCC’s order was set aside.
Results
Summary Judgment Obtained in an Auto Negligence Case Involving a Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing App
We secured summary judgment in an auto negligence case, in which we represented a car sharing app and an individual vehicle owner who rented our his car using the app. The plaintiff alleged that, under Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, the app and the owner were vicariously liable for the renter of the vehicle, who allegedly struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. We successfully argued that the Graves Amendment preempts the application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine and exempts our clients from vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of the driver.
Dismissal of Florida No-Fault/PIP Action
The action was brought against an out-of-state insurer based on the plaintiff’s failure to arbitrate. The plaintiff filed suit against a New Jersey insurance company over treatment that occurred in Florida. However, the subject policy and the laws of New Jersey require mandatory arbitration prior to initiating litigation. On the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, the court found that the doctrine of lex loci contractus applied, which required the plaintiff to comply with New Jersey law and policy and to submit to arbitration prior to filing suit. The court entered a final order dismissing the case and compelling the plaintiff to complete binding arbitration.
