.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 2, March 2021

March 1, 2021

Appointments

The Professional Liability Defense Federation (PLDF) has named Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) as chair of the newly formed School Leaders Liability Claims Committee.

The Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) has named Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) as vice chair of the Future PLUS committee for the 2021 term. As vice chair of the committee, Jeremy will work directly with the committee chair to facilitate various sub-committees that focus on mentorship, networking and outreach of PLUS throughout the insurance industry. Jeremy is also coordinating an effort with PLUS to implement a global PLUS mentorship initiative that will pair senior insurance professionals with Future PLUS members new to the field.

Jacqueline Reynolds (King of Prussia, PA) has been elected president of the Montgomery Bar Association. She will serve a one-year term, beginning January 8, 2021. Jackie has a long history of involvement with the Montgomery Bar Association. Throughout her 23 years of membership, she has served as a member of the Board of Directors, chair of Women in the Law, president of the Trial Lawyers Section and a member of the Medical Legal Society, Membership Committee and the Civil Rules Committee.

Recognition

Frank Leanza (Roseland, NJ) has been named by corporate counsel to the BTI Client Service All-Stars 2020. He is one of only 475 attorneys selected nationwide. To become an All-Star, an attorney must be identified by corporate counsel for superior client service -- client service exceeding all others. No attorney can lobby to be added to the list, there is no self-submission process, and law firms cannot provide names of clients to be contacted. Those selected are the end result of nearly 350 in-depth, independent interviews with legal decision makers at the world’s leading organizations.

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) was awarded the RPLU designation from the Professional Liability Underwriting Society. The RPLU (Registered Professional Liability Underwriter) designation is the only professional credential exclusively for people in the professional liability industry. It is conferred on professionals who complete a rigorous insurance curriculum and meet the PLUS experience and ethics requirements.

Published Articles

Mike Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) authored the article “Is There a Doctor In the House?” This article discusses the use of telemedicine in workers’ compensation cases. Published in the November 2020 issue of CLM Magazine, you can read the article here. https://online.pubhtml5.com/adfn/wngy/#p=16

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) authored the article “Florida Courts Clarify Role of Appraisal in Coverage Claim Disputes,” appearing in the Southeast edition of Insurance Journal magazine. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2020/12/10/593271.htm. Kim and Eric Reichenberger’s (Fort Lauderdale, FL) article “Florida Adoption of Federal Judgment Standards a Win for Insurers” was published by Insurance Journal, Southeast Edition. The article, published on January 6, 2021, can be seen at https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2021/01/06/596241.htm.

Mary Kate McGrath, Adam Fulginiti (Philadelphia, PA) and Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) authored the article “How COVID-19 Accelerated Telehealth In 2020” for Law360.com. The article examines the technological, legal and logistical trajectory of telehealth in 2002. Click here to read the full article. Jeff also authored “Forecasting the Future of SIU Claims in a Post-COVID-19 World,” which was posted on December 15, 2020, on PropertyCasualty360.com. https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2020/12/15/forecasting-the-future-of-siu-claims-in-a-post-covid-19-world/?cmp_share.

Courtney Schulnick (Philadelphia, PA) has recently had two articles published. “The Difference Mindfulness Can Make: Help Bring the Practice to Children,” was published in the December 2020 issue of The Philadelphia Bar Reporter. You can read this article at https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/difference-mindfulness-can-make-help-bring-practice-children. “Mindfulness Meditations” was published in the December 16, 2020, edition of the DRI publication, The Voice. https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/mindfulness-meditation. 

Speaking Engagements

Mary Kate McGrath and Adam Fulginiti (Philadelphia, PA) presented the webinar “Telehealth Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues: Adopting and Implementing Innovative Solutions.” During the 90-minute presentation, Mary Kate and Adam addressed issues arising from the use of multiple technologies in the telehealth encounter, such as remote monitoring devices, digital therapeutics and AI-based algorithms. They discussed the challenges in complying with evolving federal and state telemedicine requirements, compliance with telehealth requirements for new innovative technologies, and best practices for adopting and implementing innovative telehealth solutions in line with data privacy requirements.

Steven Christman (New York, NY), Walter Klekotka (Mount Laurel, NJ), Joseph Lesinski (Pittsburgh, PA) and Amanda Podlucky (Orlando, FL) recently made a virtual presentation on “Jurisdictional Trends & The COVID-19 Impact in FL NY NJ & PA.”

Michael Packer (Fort Lauderdale, FL) presented a webinar for CLM titled “Covid 19: To Be Property Damage or Not to Be Property Damage.” The webinar focused on whether there has been “property damage” as generally defined under a standard commercial policy and whether coverage is triggered under such policies.

Scott Gemberling (Philadelphia, PA) recently co-presented with a toxicologist on the topic “Dram Shop, The Toxicology and the Law” for the National Academy of Continuing Legal Education. This online course was an overview of the toxicology of alcohol with a focus on the legal aspects of dram shop cases. Scott discussed the many scenarios of civil litigation where alcohol may be involved, shared insights, unique challenges, and modifications surrounding a dram shop jury trial that took place during COVID-19.

Patrick Reilly (Pittsburgh, PA) recently presented a webinar “Liquor Liability In Pennsylvania.” ​His discussion highlighted who needs liquor liability, who’s covered, requirements, how bars can protect themselves and the importance of surveillance.

Bradley Remick (Philadelphia, PA) recently co-presented a webinar “Investigating Fire Cause vs Cause of Loss.” This one-hour webinar reviewed the difference between responsibility for the cause of a fire and cause of a loss. The presenters discussed modeling tools in fire investigation and how the fire cause versus cause of loss difference can be applied through case study analysis.

A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) and Melanie Foreman (Philadelphia, PA) recently made a virtual presentation on the topic “Negligence 101 – A Pennsylvania and Florida Legal Overview.” The presentation focused on Pennsylvania and Florida law surrounding slip and fall, negligent security, auto accidents, dog bites and strict liability issues, to name a few.

Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) was a featured presenter at the Workers’ Compensation Claims Professionals (WCCP) 2020 Annual Holiday Conference, which was held virtually. As part of the five-hour law and ethics update, Heather presented on “Ethical Requirements: Empathy and Ethics in Workers’ Compensation.”

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) and Ross Carrozza (Scranton, PA) hosted the webinar “Navigate the Medicare Maze: A Practical Guide to Understanding Medicare Set-Asides.” They provided practical advice to simplify the Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) process. Topics included learning to identify when an MSA is necessary, what information Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) looks for during the process, and MSA reduction strategies to help keep costs in check.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA), Robert Fitzgerald (Mount Laurel, NJ), John Gonzales (Philadelphia, PA), Keri Morris-Johnston (Wilmington, DE) and Rachel Ramsay-Lowe (Roseland, NJ) presented a webinar “Workers’ Compensation Winter Roundup.” The discussion focused on hot topics at the intersection of workers’ compensation and employment law, including the impact of terminating an employee while on workers’ compensation, dealing with credits against workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment issues, and navigating the interplay between FMLA, ADA and workers’ compensation.

Scott Dunlop and Paul Krepps (Pittsburgh, PA) presented a webinar on “Hot Topics in 2020 Law Enforcement Liability.” Participants learned more about qualified immunity, deadly force, mass disturbance, emergency vehicle operation and body cameras.

Kimberly Berman, Ryan Burns and A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) presented a webinar, “56 Feds are Coming: Strategies Using the Upcoming Florida Summary Judgment Standard,” on the recent changes to the motion for summary judgement in the state of Florida.

Media Commentary

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) participated in Issues on Appeal Podcast. ​In this podcast, Board Certified Appellate Specialist Duane Daiker interviews members of Florida’s appellate community about timely and timeless issues of appellate practice and professionalism. Kimberly’s segment can be heard at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fonts/id1455060207?i=1000504248807.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 2, March 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

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.

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.