South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Workers’ Compensation and the Statute of Limitations

Published on: January 30, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Workers’ compensation benefits provide essential support for employees recovering from work-related injuries. These benefits often include ongoing medical care, especially for permanent conditions requiring long-term supervision. However, disputes can arise when employers or insurance carriers claim that the statute of limitations bars further benefits, cutting off an injured worker’s access to care. A recent Florida appellate court decision highlights this issue, emphasizing the importance of understanding how the statute of limitations operates in workers’ compensation cases and the role of tolling periods in preserving an injured worker’s rights.

The Role of the Statute of Limitations in Workers’ Compensation

Under Florida’s workers’ compensation laws, an employee generally has two years from the date of their injury—or the date they knew or should have known the injury was work-related—to file a petition for benefits (PFB). However, this timeframe can be extended when an employer or insurance carrier provides authorized medical care related to the injury. Each instance of authorized treatment restarts the tolling period, effectively giving the injured worker additional time to file a claim.

In the recent case, the employer and its servicing agent argued that the statute of limitations had expired, barring the injured worker from filing a PFB for further care. The worker, who had suffered a compensable injury requiring the removal of a kidney, had been receiving ongoing follow-up care from an authorized urologist for years. When the urologist stopped billing the servicing agent, the employer claimed the tolling period had ended, making the worker’s PFB time-barred. However, the appellate court disagreed, finding that the worker’s visits to the authorized urologist constituted furnished care, which extended the statute of limitations.

Understanding Sovereign Immunity and Pre-Suit Notice in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: January 22, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s sovereign immunity laws protect government agencies and employees from lawsuits except under specific conditions. When a government employee causes harm, sovereign immunity can only be waived if the injured party strictly complies with the pre-suit notice requirements outlined in section 768.28(6) of the Florida Statutes. These requirements ensure the responsible agency receives proper notice of the claim, allowing it to investigate and address the issue before litigation begins. In a recent case from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal, the court reversed a trial court’s decision denying summary judgment to a sheriff’s office. The injured party failed to meet the pre-suit notice conditions required under section 768.28(6), leading the court to determine that sovereign immunity had not been waived. This decision underscores the importance of following statutory requirements precisely when filing a claim against a government entity.

What Is Sovereign Immunity?

Sovereign immunity shields government agencies and employees from being sued without their consent. Florida Statutes allow limited waivers of this protection under specific circumstances, but strict compliance with the outlined procedures is necessary. When suing a government entity for negligence, you must adhere to pre-suit notice requirements to proceed with the claim. Pre-suit notice under section 768.28(6) requires claimants to notify the appropriate agency of their claim in writing. This notice must include the specific details of the alleged negligence and demand compensation. Failing to meet these conditions bars the claimant from pursuing the lawsuit, as sovereign immunity remains intact. Florida courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of following these statutory requirements without deviation.

The Importance of Proper Pre-Suit Notice

Pre-suit notice serves an essential purpose in claims involving government agencies. It provides the state or its subdivisions sufficient time to investigate the allegations and potentially resolve the claim before litigation. Florida law requires claimants to provide written notice to the appropriate agency and the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) within three years of the incident. The recent appellate court decision involved a claimant who sent notices to several entities but failed to send proper notice to the sheriff’s office responsible for the alleged negligence. Emails sent by the claimant’s attorney’s office to the sheriff’s office included basic information about the accident but did not meet the statutory requirement of presenting a formal claim for compensation. The court found that these communications were insufficient to waive sovereign immunity.

Determining Liability When a Rideshare Driver Causes a Fatal Accident

Published on: January 14, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Accidents involving rideshare drivers often leave victims and their families facing uncertainty about who is responsible. A recent fatal collision in Florida involving a rideshare contractor highlights the challenges of determining liability in such cases. The decision to clear the rideshare company of responsibility sheds light on the factors that influence accountability under Florida law.

Rideshare Contractor’s Status at the Time of the Accident

According to the judicial opinion, the tragic accident involved a rideshare contractor who had been disengaged from the platform for several months. Driving a personal vehicle after completing a private errand, the individual entered a roadway where the fatal collision occurred. Evidence showed the driver was not logged into the rideshare app and was not performing any tasks for the company at the time.

In court, the rideshare company successfully argued that it could not be held liable under these circumstances. Florida law requires a clear connection between drivers’ activities and rideshare duties to establish corporate responsibility. Since the contractor was on personal business, the court ruled in favor of the company.

Limitations of Expert Testimony in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: January 7, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Expert testimony is crucial in personal injury trials, helping juries understand an incident’s technical or scientific aspects. However, when experts testify outside the boundaries of their expertise, their opinions risk prejudicing the jury and affecting the case outcome. A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal highlights these issues, focusing on the scope of biomechanical expert testimony in personal injury cases. In this case, the appellate court ruled that the trial court improperly allowed a biomechanical engineer to offer medical causation opinions, exceeding the expert’s qualifications and warranting a new trial.

Biomechanical engineers are frequently called upon in personal injury cases to explain the forces involved in an accident and how a hypothetical person might respond to those forces. While their expertise is valuable in understanding mechanics and dynamics, it does not extend to diagnosing or determining the specific cause of an individual’s injuries. The Fifth District’s opinion underscores the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between engineering analysis and medical conclusions in personal injury litigation.

What Biomechanical Experts Can Address

Biomechanical engineers provide insight into how physical forces from an accident interact with the human body. Their analyses often focus on whether the forces involved could generate specific injury mechanisms in a general sense. For example, a biomechanical expert might testify about the likelihood of a particular type of injury occurring given the speed of a collision, the position of a vehicle occupant, or the physical properties of the human body. This type of testimony helps jurors understand the mechanics of the accident without delving into individualized medical conclusions.

Florida Premises Liability Cases Involving Obstructed Hazards

Published on: December 31, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal underscores the challenges of premises liability cases involving hazards that are not immediately noticeable. In this case, a customer tripped over a furniture trolley left on the sales floor of a retail store. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the store, deciding that the cart was an open and obvious hazard.. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the cart was visible from the customer’s perspective.

This ruling underscores the duty of Florida property owners to ensure their premises are free of dangerous conditions, even if those conditions might be visible under certain circumstances. It also illustrates the importance of a comprehensive examination of evidence in premises liability claims.

What Makes a Hazard “Open and Obvious”?

Under Florida law, property owners are not automatically liable for every hazard on their premises. If a danger is considered “open and obvious,” property owners may not have a duty to warn patrons or remove the hazard. However, whether a hazard is truly open and obvious depends on the specific circumstances of the incident, including the victim’s perspective and the layout of the premises.

In this case, the victim argued that a wall of merchandise obstructed her view of the furniture trolley and that she only became aware of it after tripping. While video footage showed the trolley from certain angles, it did not conclusively capture the victim’s line of sight or demonstrate that the cart was clearly visible from her position. The appellate court determined that this lack of definitive evidence raised a factual question suitable for a jury to decide.

The Role of Expert Testimony in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: December 24, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal underscores the critical role expert testimony plays in personal injury cases. In this case, the defendant admitted to negligence in a car accident, but the trial centered on a dispute over the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries. Competing experts presented conflicting evidence, leaving the jury to determine the credibility and weight of their opinions.

Expert testimony can make or break your claim if you are involved in a personal injury case. Understanding how experts influence jury decisions and knowing how to address disputes between them is essential to achieving a favorable outcome.

Why Expert Testimony Matters in Personal Injury Cases

Expert witnesses are often the cornerstone of personal injury cases, significantly when the focus shifts from liability to the extent of injuries and damages. Medical experts, in particular, provide critical insight into the nature of a plaintiff’s injuries, the treatment required, and the long-term impact on their life.

In the Fifth District case, the plaintiff’s medical experts likely helped the jury understand the severity of her injuries, while the defense relied on experts to minimize those claims. This tug-of-war highlights the importance of presenting transparent, credible, and persuasive expert testimony to support your case. A strong expert witness can lend weight to your claim and provide the jury with the evidence they need to rule in your favor.

Florida Premises Liability and Wet Floor Accidents

Published on: December 14, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal addresses an essential issue in premises liability cases: whether a business can be held responsible for a customer’s injuries caused by a slippery floor. The case involved a customer who slipped and fell in a restaurant restroom, allegedly due to a freshly mopped floor. The customer argued that the restaurant failed to adequately warn patrons about the dangerous condition and failed to maintain the floor in a safe condition.

The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the restaurant, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether the restaurant had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor. This ruling highlights key considerations for slip-and-fall claims in Florida, particularly the burden of proof required to establish negligence and the significance of evidence like witness testimony and maintenance procedures.

Establishing Negligence in Florida Premises Liability Cases

In Florida, property owners must maintain their premises reasonably safe and warn visitors of known hazards. For a successful premises liability claim, you must demonstrate:

The property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard;
The hazard caused your injury; and
The property owner failed to take reasonable steps to address or warn about the danger.

In this case, the victim presented evidence that the restroom floor was wet due to an employee’s recent mopping. The restaurant argued that there was no proof the floor was wet at the time of the fall. Still, the victim’s testimony, combined with evidence of the employee’s mopping practices, created a genuine issue of material fact for the jury.

The Role of Causation in Florida Car Accident Cases

Published on: December 5, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent ruling by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal emphasizes the critical role causation plays in personal injury claims following car accidents. In this case, a victim sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a 2019 rear-end collision. While the jury ultimately awarded over $1.6 million, the defense argued on appeal that causation remained a contested issue, and the trial court erred by removing it from jury consideration.

The appellate court’s decision to reverse the directed verdict on causation underscores the importance of proving the direct connection between the at-fault party’s negligence and the injuries claimed. In Florida car accident cases, demonstrating causation is often among the most challenging and hotly debated aspects.

What is Causation in Florida Personal Injury Cases?

Causation refers to the legal requirement that a victim must prove their injuries directly resulted from the at-fault party’s negligence. In car accident cases, this means showing that the at-fault party’s actions, such as failing to stop in time, caused the injuries for which the victim seeks compensation.

Understanding Your Rights After a Multi-Vehicle Crash in Miami

Published on: November 30, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent multi-vehicle crash in Miami left five people hospitalized, highlighting the serious risks of accidents involving multiple cars. According to reports, the collision occurred near Northwest 103rd Street and Northwest 17th Avenue, resulting in a chaotic scene of damaged vehicles, blocked traffic, and emergency responders working to assist the injured. While authorities are still investigating the cause of the crash, incidents like these raise important questions about liability, safety, and the legal options available to accident victims.

At Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, we understand how overwhelming the aftermath of a car accident can be. From navigating medical treatments to dealing with insurance claims, the road to recovery is often complicated. If you or a loved one has been injured in a similar accident, knowing your rights and legal remedies is crucial to securing the compensation you need.

Common Causes of Multi-Vehicle Crashes

Multi-vehicle crashes often result from a chain reaction of events. Speeding, distracted driving, poor weather conditions, or driver inexperience can all contribute to collisions that involve multiple cars. In some cases, a single negligent driver may set off a series of events that lead to widespread damage and injury. In Miami, where high traffic density and aggressive driving habits are common, these risks are amplified.

Determining fault in multi-vehicle accidents can be challenging, as multiple parties may share responsibility. For example, one driver may be at fault for following too closely, while another could be speeding or failing to maintain proper lane discipline. These complex scenarios make it essential to have an experienced attorney evaluate your case and gather evidence to establish liability.

Who Can Be Held Responsible in Florida Truck Accidents Involving Commercial Vehicles?

Published on: November 25, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A tragic crash in Miami Gardens earlier this week involving a Publix tractor-trailer and a pickup truck has raised questions about liability in accidents with commercial vehicles. The collision occurred near a Publix distribution center when the tractor-trailer was making a left turn, and a speeding pickup truck slammed into its trailer. Sadly, the pickup truck driver did not survive, and the incident highlights the complexities of determining responsibility in such cases under Florida law.

Can Employers Be Held Accountable for Their Drivers’ Actions?

In Florida, trucking companies like Publix may be held accountable for accidents involving their drivers through vicarious liability under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. This principle means an employer can be held responsible for the negligent actions of its employees if those actions occur within the scope of employment.