Results

We received summary judgment in a vehicular accident case involving disputed liability. Mr. Thurman was the third vehicle in a three-car collision in which the first vehicle admitted fault and was ticketed. Following the accident, the plaintiffs claimed they were in a fourth vehicle and alleged that Mr. Thurman caused the crash. When the claim was denied—and on the eve of the implementation of tort reform—the plaintiffs filed individual lawsuits against Mr. Thurman alone. We subpoenaed the repair shop that serviced Mr. Thurman’s vehicle and obtained records confirming that there was no front-end damage. When the plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery, we prepared motions for summary judgment in both cases. In response, only one plaintiff submitted an affidavit, while Mr. Thurman provided his own affidavit denying the allegations. We argued the motions, demonstrating that the evidence showed the plaintiffs were not involved in the collision and that Mr. Thurman bore no fault. The court ruled in our favor in both cases. Before the orders could be entered, however, the plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Before moving for summary judgment, we had served Proposals for Settlement on the plaintiffs and their counsel. After the dismissals, we filed a motion establishing entitlement to attorney’s fees, and the parties ultimately reached an agreement resolving all fees and costs in both cases.

We were successful in having a motion for indemnification granted. Our client’s subcontractor did not secure workers’ compensation coverage as required by the statute. Therefore, our client—the contractor—became the statutory employer and accepted the claim as compensable, providing medical and indemnity benefits and reaching a settlement compromise with the injured worker. We filed a motion for indemnification, requesting that the subcontractor be ordered to reimburse our client for all monies paid on the claim. After an evidentiary hearing was held, where we presented evidence and called the vice president of claims to testify, the judge of compensation claims granted our motion.

We won a motion for summary judgment in a premises liability case where the plaintiff lost control of her e-bike while riding over leaves in our client’s RV sales lot. The plaintiff claimed that the fall caused an aggravation of a prior shoulder injury, resulting in surgery, as well as chronic pain in her low back. We argued that the leaves were a naturally occurring element of a wooded lot and, even if they were hazardous, they were open and obvious. The plaintiff argued that she did not perceive the leaves as being hazardous; therefore, there was an issue of fact regarding whether her perception was reasonable. The plaintiff also argued, the fact that our client had a maintenance contract with a service to remove fallen leaves indicated that they were on notice of the leaves being hazardous. The court did not agree with this argument and found in favor of our client. 

We successfully contested a claimant’s request for authorization for a van equipped with a wheelchair lift, arguing it was not a medical necessity following a work-related injury. Testimony revealed the claimant’s significant mobility challenges were due to a work-related traumatic brain injury and spastic hemiplegia. However, the employer/carrier contested the request, asserting it was neither reasonable nor medically necessary based on the authorized treating physician’s assessment. Ultimately, the judge of compensation claims found the claimant did not meet the burden of proof to establish the necessity of the van, siding with the employer/carrier’s argument, and denied the authorization request along with the claims for attorney’s fees and costs.

We obtained a directed verdict in favor of our client in a high-risk defamation lawsuit. We were called to try the case on behalf of the CEO of a local chapter of a well-known national nonprofit after the plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages from the CEO personally. The plaintiff was a volunteer at a camp. A decision was made to separate him from the camp and the organization. The plaintiff alleged that the CEO personally defamed him by alerting other volunteers and committees of the decision. He demanded an eight-figure sum prior to trial. After a six-day trial and several hours of argument at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court granted our motion for directed verdict, ruling that the evidence presented confirmed that the communications by the CEO were covered by a qualified privilege and that, based on cross examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defense established that there was no malicious conduct by the CEO. 

We obtained a workers’ compensation defense verdict on behalf of an employer/carrier in a previously compensable claim by proving the claimant knowingly and intentionally made false, fraudulent, and misleading statements under oath during two depositions, and to two authorized treating providers, which were contradicted by surveillance and other evidence, ultimately barring the claimant from further benefits. The case involved multiple expert and fact witness testimony and presentation of multiple days of surveillance to the court.

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an employer/carrier in a previously compensable claim. We were able to prove the claimant knowingly and intentionally made false, fraudulent, and misleading statements under oath during two depositions, and to two authorized treating providers, which were contradicted by surveillance and other evidence, ultimately barring the claimant from further benefits. The fraud/misrepresentation defense is an affirmative defense, and the burden was on the employer/carrier to prove same. The case involved multiple expert and fact witnesses and presentation of multiple days of surveillance to the court. 

We secured a directed verdict in favor of our client in a high-exposure and high-risk defamation lawsuit. We were called to try the case on behalf of the CEO of a local chapter of a well-known national non-profit after the plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages from the CEO personally. When we received the case, the trial was set to begin in four weeks. We secured a brief continuance and built a client-specific defense focused on the CEO while working with a team of other firms representing other defendants, including the non-profit organization which had formerly represented all of the defendants jointly.  Background: The plaintiff was a volunteer at a camp. A decision was made to separate him from the camp and the organization. The plaintiff alleged that the CEO personally defamed him by alerting other volunteers and committees of the decision. He demanded an eight-figure sum prior to trial.  After a six-day trial and several hours of argument at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court granted our motion for directed verdict, ruling that the evidence presented confirmed that the communications by the CEO were covered by a qualified privilege and that, based on cross examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defense established that there was no malicious conduct by the CEO.  The case had been pending since 2020, and in fewer than 100 days, we became familiar with the factual and legal details to bring home a win for the client.   

We successfully argued that a settlement agreement, based upon a binding and enforceable agreement reached via email between the parties, is enforced. The claimant had given her attorney authority to settle, but subsequently changed her mind. Based upon case law, there was unequivocal authority to settle and it was too late for the claimant to negate the agreement previously reached. The judge of compensation claims agreed and upheld the settlement. In another matter, we filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached by the parties at mediation, which the judge of compensation claims granted. Despite attending mediation, reaching an agreement and having a mediation report drafted, the claimant did not sign the agreement. He then terminated the services of his attorney and retained new counsel. At the hearing held before the judge, Linda called the claimant’s former attorney as a witness and also conducted a direct examination of the claimant. Ultimately, the judge found that the claimant had agreed to settle and changed his mind later. Therefore, the settlement agreement was enforced.

We obtained a dismissal with prejudice in an action based on an alleged violation of contract, constitutional challenge of a Florida statute, and enforcement of a third-party settlement agreement. We represented an international nonprofit private membership organization in an action by a former member for violation of his membership in said organization. The plaintiff attempted to use a settlement agreement from a prior case to show that he was in compliance with the organization’s membership requirements. He also argued that the requirement to be a member of an underlying organization was unconstitutional because of an antiquated Florida law. We argued that a settlement agreement could not be enforced against a third party with no connection to a settlement agreement, in addition to pointing out the plaintiff’s failure to follow procedural requirements. Agreeing with our arguments, the judge ruled from the bench after oral arguments, dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to state a breach of contract and failure to state a cause of action under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

The plaintiff’s decedent was shot and killed while allegedly on his way home from school. We  were able to prove that the young man was a trespasser on the common area of the property where he was shot, even though his aunt was a tenant in the apartment complex. The decedent’s family claimed he was on his way to see her. Our investigation revealed that he was connected to local gangs and that, at the time of his shooting, he was wearing a ski mask (in Florida) and carrying a hand gun.

We won a total controvert on a workers’ compensation exposure claim and successfully defended a denial. The claimant alleged exposure to a toxic airplane paint thinner at a plant in Kentucky in December of 2019. He was a subcontractor of the airplane manufacturer, but a Florida employee. The claimant complained of breathing issues and skin rashes. He sought treatment at an emergency room in Kentucky on the date of alleged exposure ,and again approximately 10 months later for skin rashes. However, the claimant was able to continue working without any wage loss the entire time. The employer/carrier denied and defended on the basis that the claimant could not prove causation by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to F.S. 440.02. The claimant obtained an IME, which opined that his breathing issues could be attributable to the alleged exposure, but that the rashes most likely were not. The claimant’s IME physician opined that the claimant needed to undergo additional testing to determine causation. The employer/carrier’s IME opined that the major contributing cause of the claimant’s rashes and breathing issues was not the alleged exposure. The Judge of Compensation Claims accepted the employer/carrier’s IME and held that the claimant failed to prove that a workplace chemical exposure was the major contributing cause of his complaints. 

​The issue involved whether the injured employee was the statutory employee of our client, or of the subcontractor who actually hired him. The injured worker was hired by a subcontractor during the aftermath of the Category 5 storm, Hurricane Michael, that hit near Panama City, Florida on October 10, 2018. The subcontractor’s company could not provide hiring paperwork that would have confirmed workers’ compensation coverage by the employee leasing company due to lack of electricity, internet connections and cellular service. Therefore, the parties agreed that the hiring paperwork would be hand delivered to the risk manager for the employee leasing company. The worker was injured one day before the hiring paperwork was hand delivered, but after the parties had agreed on hand delivery of the paperwork. The court found this to be sufficient evidence of detrimental reliance and of a disputed issue of material fact that the motion for summary judgment was denied.

We successfully defended a petition for permanent total disability benefits, supplemental benefits and penalties, interest, costs and attorneys fees. The judge entered a Final Compensation Order, finding the claimant was not permanently and totally disabled despite a substantial, but not exhaustive, job search. The judge found the claimant’s job search was not sufficient or reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including her physical impairment, age, employment history, training, education, motivation, work experience, work record, and diligence to establish entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits. The judge held the testimony of the employer/carrier’s vocational experts was persuasive in his decision to deny PTD benefits, finding the claimant was employable with the assistance of vocational counseling.

The order involved multiple petitions filed by a pro se claimant for compensability of contact dermatitis and concrete burns allegedly sustained while working. The judge ruled in favor of the employer on all petitions, finding compensability was previously resolved and the ongoing issues were moot. The judge denied and dismissed, with prejudice, claims for temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits, authorization of medical care, and all corresponding penalties and interest. Most significantly, the judge granted the employer's defense of medical non-compliance from March 21, 2017, present and found that the claimant required no further treatment for his work-related injury. The employer can recover taxable costs against the claimant pursuant to Florida Statute 440.34 as the prevailing party on all petitions.