Florida Injury Attorneys Blog

In Miles vs. City of Edgewater Police, 1D15-0165 the First District Court of Appeal declared Florida Statutes 440.105(3)(c) and 440.34 unconstitutional because they infringe on the Claimant’s right to contract to pay attorney’s fees from their own funds for litigating a workers compensation claim.  Any contract for fees for representing an injured person must like all fees for Florida attorneys comply with the factors set forth in Lee Engineering, 209 So.2d. 454, 458 (Fla. 1968) and the Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(b).  In Miles, the 1^st DCA stated “we hold that no attorney accepting fees, per such a fee contract in this situation may be prosecuted under 440.105(3)(c) Fla. Stat.  The right of the Claimant to contract is known as a civil liberty possessed by all persons and is within the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

Continue reading →

Are ex parte communications between a nurse case manager and a physician permissible?  The answer to this question truly depends on whether the nurse case manager is a qualified rehabilitative provider performing a reemployment assessment or if the nurse case manager is solely retained to perform medical care coordination services.  If the nurse case manager is a “qualified rehabilitation provider” and retained to perform a re-employment assessment,  then ex parte communications are appropriate and allowable pursuant to Florida Statue 440.13(4)(c).    Conversely, if the nurse case manager is retained by the employer or the carrier for the sole purpose of medical care coordination, ex parte communications are impermissible and a violation of the statute.  It is important to note that just because the nurse case manger is deemed a “qualified rehabilitation provider” that does not, in and of itself, permit ex parte communications between she and the physician.

While Florida Statute 440.13 (4)(c), allows the employer and or the carrier to have ex parte communications with the physicians, this statute does not extend to third parties or a qualified rehabilitation provider who is not performing a reemployment assessment.

If you have been assigned a nurse case manager, it is important to understand her role.  If you are unsure, please do not hesitate to contact our office as we would be more than happy to speak with you.

On 4-28-16, the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Castellanos v Next Door Company SC 13-2082 declared Florida Statute 440.34 unconstitutional because it violated the Constitutional due process right to the courts for the injured workers. The constitutional violation was based on the failure of that statute to allow claimants’ attorneys to obtain a reasonable attorney fee for litigating and obtaining benefits under the Florida Workers Compensation Act.  This is a victory for the injured workers as their attorneys can now receive reasonable compensation for obtaining needed benefits for the injured workers.

This firm has always been dedicated to protect the rights of the injured person. Angel Kirkconnell at this firm has litigated tirelessly to help the injured worker.  Now with the advent the ability of attorneys to get paid, this firm can give meaningful help to achieve benefits for those injured in the line of work.

Continue reading →

As we know, the law requires that a medical benefit which includes, but is not limited to, the treatment, a device or an aid be medically necessary.  In order to award that benefit, the test is whether it is medically necessary.  A Judge of Compensation Claims may award only those medical benefits that are medically necessary.  It is important to understand the distinction between a medically necessary benefit and those that are merely pleasant or convenient.  Simple convenience will not suffice nor would a benefit that would neither improve nor aid in recovery be considered medically necessary. Continue reading →

The answer to this question is – NO.  The 1^st District Court of Appeals recently addressed this question and issued an opinion which can be found in Boley Centers, Inc./Comp Options v. William Vines, Case No. 1D14-5869 (November 16, 2015). Continue reading →