Florida Workers' Compensation Lawyer & Attorney : David A. McCranie : Serving Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, St Petersburg

In Tractor Supply Co. v. Kent, which I discussed here, the Fifth DCA held that an employer was not estopped from asserting workers' compensation immunity as a defense to a civil action by its injured employee merely because it contended that the employee's ongoing medical condition is no longer attributable to the on-the-job accident, but to a pre-existing condition.

 

Now the Second DCA has followed suit in Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. v. Monteil et al., decided on 5/14/2008. Monteil was injured in a compensable workers' compensation accident while working for Coca-Cola.  They paid him benefits after the accident for approximately twelve weeks, but then concluded that his ongoing medical condition was no longer related to his work injury, but to a pre-existing degenerative condition, and therefore controverted further benefits at that point.  Rather than filing a petition for benefits, Monteil sued Coca-Cola for negligence in allegedly causing his accident.  Coca-Cola moved for summary judgment, contending that the "exclusive remedy" provision of §440.11 barred the action, but Monteil successfully opposed the motion by contending that Coca-Cola, by controverting further benefits, was estopped from asserting the exclusive remedy defense.  The Second DCA disagreed and reversed.  Quoting Kent with approval, the court said:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By a vote of 4-3, the Florida Supreme Court in this 3/20/2008 order has denied review of the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Tractor Supply Company v. Kent, a case from last August which I discussed here and here.

 

The claimant in that case filed a tort claim against his employer after the workers' compensation carrier denied his workers' compensation claim on the grounds that his medical problems all stemmed from a pre-existing condition.  The Fifth DCA had held that this denial did not estop the employer from asserting workers' compensation immunity as a defense in the subsequent tort action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The claimant/plaintiff in Tractor Supply Company v. Kent, a case which I wrote about here, has filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.  In that case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that just because a workers' compensation carrier has previously denied an employee's workers' compensation claim, the employer is not necessarily estopped from asserting workers' compensation immunity as an affirmative defense to the employee's subsequent liability claim against the employer. 

 

Kent argues that the Fifth District's decision "expressly and directly conflicts" with three previous decisions from the First District Court of Appeal.  (I had suggested in my initial post that the Fifth District's decision in Kent was actually inconsistent with its own previous decision in Byerly v. Citrus Publishing, Inc., 725 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).  Even if true, however, intra-district conflict is insufficient to permit Supreme Court review.  There must be inter-district conflict in order for the supreme court to have jurisdiction under Art V, §3(b)(3), Fla. Const.).  You can read his jurisdictional brief here.

 

The employer/defendant, of course, suggests there is no conflict.  You can read the employer's jurisdictional brief here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In what appears to be a significant retreat from an earlier decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held that just because a workers' compensation carrier has previously denied an employee's workers' compensation claim, the employer is not estopped from asserting workers' compensation immunity as an affirmative defense in that employee's subsequent tort suit against it.

 

In Tractor Supply Company v. Kent, decided on 8/31/2007, the employee (Kent) claimed he was injured during the course of his employment with Tractor Supply Company when he was exposed to hydrated lime dust, allegedly causing an aggravation of a pre-existing pulmonary condition.  Kent filed a petition for benefits with the JCC, but the workers' compensation carrier filed a denial, stating "Entire claim denied, as the condition complained of is the result of a pre-existing medical condition that is not the result of employment with Tractor Supply."  Upon receiving the denial, Kent voluntarily dismissed his petition and filed a tort suit against the employer in circuit court.  Tractor Supply Company filed an answer in that suit in which it asserted that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity.  The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Kent, holding that the employer was estopped as  matter of law from raising workers' compensation immunity as an affirmative defense because of the carrier's earlier denial of Kent's petition for benefits in the workers' compensation forum.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks