Skip to main content

Williams v Department of Corrections

This August 31, 2012 1DCA opinion reversed Judge Winn's JCC decision.

In this case, the timeline is important. In short, the timeline was:
 
A PFB for PTD benefits was filed on January 25, 2011.
The carrier received the PFB on January 28, 2011.
On February 16, 2011, the carrier accepted the claimant as PTD (18 days after receipt of the PFB). The very next day the carrier issued a $2,000 advance that had previously been requested by the claimant.
Finally on March 10, the carrier issued a check paying the claimant PTD benefits minus the $2,000 cash advance.(the first installment of PTD benefits was made 41 days after the PFB was received by the carrier.)

Claimant's counsel filed for attorney fees asserting as grounds that the carrier initially denied the claim but ultimately accepted the claim. The JCC denied fees concluding that the advance paid was a discharge of liability from the date thereof until such advance is recouped by offset against subsequent benefits. The JCC also concluded that the advance was paid out within 30 days of the carrier's receipt of the PFB.
 
Because the issue on appeal was based solely on statutory interpretation, the 1DCA reviewed the case De Novo. The 1DCA opined that F.S. 440.34(3)(b) indicated that a carrier is deemed to have denied the PFB if it is not responded to within 14 days of receipt. The 1DCA went on to opine F.S. 440.34 also indicates that attorney fees do not attach until 30 days after the carrier receives the petition.
 
In this case the carrier failed to respond within the initial 14 day period and the PTD payments did not commence until 41 days after the PFB was received.
 
As for the payment of the advance, the 1DCA concluded that the "advance payment occurs without regard to the carrier's liability to pay a claimant compensation and/or benefits under chapter 440". The y went on to state "the statute does not require proof that the injured worker will actually receive any benefits in the future....limit advances to cases in which compensability is established." The 1DCA continued indicating that an advance is not a payment of compensation due to a claimant.
 
timeliness is determined by the "date the checks are put in the mail." In this case more than 30 days had elapsed before the checks were place in the mail, the 1DCA held that the claimant was entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee.
 
Labels:

Comments

  1. UnknownApril 19, 2013 at 12:27 AM

    good post.....I appreciate yor way of writing that make the blog attractive and make reader to hold longer to your blog.
    workers comp lawyer manchester nh

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

De la Cruz v Able Body Temporary Staffing

This March 6, 2012 1DCA opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part the JCC decision of Judge Sojourner. In this case, the claimant filed several petitions for benefits after injuring his right knee and left wrist in a workplace fall.  Among other things, Claimant sought authorization for a total knee replacement and TPD benefits related to the wrist injury that the Employer/Carrier had accepted as compensable.  The 1DCA held that the  JCC correctly held that the workplace accident was not the major contributing cause of Claimant’s need for knee surgery, and therefore, denied all related claims. The 1DCA affirmed that portion of the order. However, the 1DCA opined that the JCC did not rule on the TPD claim for the claimant's compensable wrist injury.  The 1DCA held that "Failure to rule on a fully tried issue is reversible error". To support their position, the 1 DCA cited the 1997 Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. Case.  The 1DCA...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is coronavirus compensable under WC?

According to the NCCI, The answer to that question is maybe. While WC laws provide compensation for “occupational diseases” that arise out of and in the course of employment, many state statutes exclude “ordinary diseases of life” (e.g., the common cold or flu). There are occupational groups that arguably would have a higher probability for exposure such as healthcare workers. However, even in those cases, there may be uncertainty as to whether the disease is compensable. Would time away from work during recovery be considered “temporary disability” or is it just normal “sick time”?    https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/Insights-COVID19-WorkersComp.aspx
Post a Comment
Read more

Arlotta v city of West Palm Beach

A March 26, 2012 1DCA decision that reversed JCC D'Ambrosio. This case continues to show the importance that the 1DCA is putting on Expert Medical Advisors (EMA). Judges of Compensation Claims have less and less control In a case where there are conflicting medical opinions. In this case, there was a conflicting medical opinion and Judge of Compensation Claims appointed an EMA to address “the issues of 1) whether the Claimant has gynecomastia, 2) the cause of the gynecomastia, and 3) what treatment is recommended.” However, before the claimant was seen by the EMA physician, the claimant had an unauthorized surgery. The claimant wanted to give copies of the unauthorized medical records to the EMA. The Employer/Carrier filed a motion to dismiss the Claimant's claims arguing that Claimant’s unilateral decision to undergo surgery prevented the EMA from answering the questions put to him and that the E/C had been prejudiced in its ability to defend the claims. The JCC fou...
1 comment
Read more