Second DCA finds WC Carrier's Alleged Conduct "Outrageous"
Perhaps one of the more significant workers' compensation decisions that have been issued in the last few years is the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So.2d 84 (Fla. 2005). In Aguilera, the Court held that a workers' compensation insurance carrier is not immune from tort liability to the claimant when it commits an intentional tort during the claims-handling process.
In the wake of Aguilera, the district courts of appeal have issued several decisions concerning whether a carrier's conduct was or was not sufficiently egregious to amount to an intentional wrongdoing. The latest is the Second Disctrict Court of Appeal's 8/29/2007 decision in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Steadman.
According to Steadman's complaint, she developed a life-threatening medical condition as a result of her on-the-job accident and needed a bilateral lung transplant. She sought authorization for the transplant from the workers' compensation insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual, but they refused, contending that the need for the procedure was due to a pre-exisiting condition. Steadman then sought and obtained an order from the judge of compensation claims directing them to provide the procedure. Despite the judge's order, however, Liberty Mutual allegedly delayed authorizing the procedure for nine more months, hoping (again, according to the allegations of the complaint) that she would die so that they wouldn't have to pay for this expensive procedure. Steadman then filed suit in circuit court against Liberty Mutual for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."
The Second District concluded that these facts - if true - would be sufficient to support a verdict for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This cause of action requires the plaintiff to plead and prove facts which are "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency." The mere fact that Liberty Mutual refused to authorize the procedure, even after the JCC ordered them to provide it , was not enough standing alone to state a cause of action, according to the Court. But in concluding that Liberty Mutual's alleged conduct was sufficiently "outrageous," the Court was persuaded by the allegations that both Liberty Mutual and Steadman were well aware that "the clock was ticking" with regard to her lung transplant and by the fact that the two parties were in unequal positions - Liberty Mutual is a huge corporation which had the power to affect the interests of Steadman, a lone injured worker.
