Luks Santaniello's Florida Workers Compensation blog

This May 29, 2012 1DCA decision reverses Judge Hill's JCC decision. The claimant filed a PFB and the JCC determined that the “initial response” was the November 9 documents prepared by the EC (notice of appearance, request for production, letter of representation, notice of deposition, and letter to the mediator) the JCC concluded that because the E/C did not assert an SOL defense, the E/C had waived that defense. The E/C argued that its initial response to the Petition for Benefits was filed on November 10, 2009. Based on the case of Certain v. Big Johnson Concrete Pumping, Inc., 34 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the 1DCA ruled that that the “initial response” has to explicitly state a position either denying or conceding the particular claims therein.

This May 15, 2012 1 DCA reverses Judge Terlizzese's JCC decision that the claimant had not settled his workers compensation claim. While represented Claimant’s signed an “Exit Interview & Separation of Employment Agreement”. After signing the Release, the claimant filed a petition for benefits. The plain language of the release indicates it applied to Claimant’s employment relationship with the Employer, it was not necessary for the agreement to be submitted to the JCC for it to be a settlement of Claimant’s workers’ compensation case. Pursuant to section 440.20(11)(c), a represented “claimant may waive all rights to any and all benefits under this chapter by entering into a settlement agreement releasing the [E/C] from liability for workers’ compensation benefits in exchange for a lump-sum payment to the claimant.”

This May 1, 2012 1DCA opinion affirmed Judge Lorenzen’s JCC order. The Claimant appealed a final denying compensability of injuries he sustained while driving from his residence to work. 440.092(2) provides that an injury suffered while going to or coming from work does not arise out of or occur in the course of employment, and because neither the special errand nor dual purpose exceptions apply, the 1 DCA held that the JCC correctly denied Claimant’s petition for benefits. On June 10, 2010, the Claimant was scheduled to be off from work, but he had to attend a memorial service for a client that evening. Although the funeral home had staff to load the equipment needed for the service, Claimant, who normally would have gone directly to the service site, chose instead to go to the funeral home to load the equipment himself, before proceeding to the memorial service. On his way to the funeral home, he lost control of his motorcycle, fell, and was injured. The “going and coming”