Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

January 13, 2015 | Blog Post| Trying to Upend the Workers' Compensation Act in Florida

A recent and unusual opinion out of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County may, at the minimum, be a harbinger for changes to come to Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act.   At the maximum, it could also provide the basis for thousands of potential liability lawsuits.

In the case of Elsa Padgett v. State of Florida, the judge ruled Section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes unconstitutional because it no longer provided an adequate replacement remedy in place of common law tort. Prior to the 2003 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured employee could receive some indemnity benefit if they suffered a partial loss of wage earning capacity or permanent impairment to the body as a whole, whichever was greater. Judge Cuerto reasoned that because an employee could not “opt-out” of the coverage of the workers’ compensation scheme, and because the Act no longer provided for partial loss of wage earning capacity with no reasonable alternative, this particular provision violated the employee’s due process rights.

This ruling is unusual for several reasons.   First, this opinion was issued from the Circuit Court judge rather than a Judge of Compensation Claims in an administrative proceeding.   As such, the Padgett appeal will be with the Third District Court of Appeal (again, in Miami-Dade) rather than the First District, which generally addresses workers’ compensation appeals.

Second, the lawsuit involving the original plaintiff and defendant had been resolved and the question posed was moot. In the initial suit, Mr. and Mrs. Cortes sued Velda Farms for negligence. Velda Farms asserted the defense of immunity under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Cortes then amended their action to assert a declaratory relief count claiming this defense was unconstitutional. Notice was provided to Florida’s Attorney General, but she was not added as a party.   Two advocacy organizations sought to intervene on behalf of the plaintiff on this discrete issue.   Velda Farms subsequently moved to withdraw its immunity defense, and the advocacy groups sought to sever the declaratory judgment claim. The declaratory judgment action was then dismissed against Velda Farms, and the Court allowed the action to proceed without the involvement of the Cortes’ but against the State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General.

The Court then denied the advocacy groups’ motion for summary judgment as there was no specific claimant seeking redress. The Court later allowed Ms. Padgett to intervene to challenge whether the issue was capable of repetition in the future and might evade review. The intervenors again moved for summary judgment, and the opinion was issued unopposed (the Attorney General never appeared in the case).

So, where does this leave the issue? The Padgett opinion is precedent in Miami-Dade County. In theory, an employee who suffered a permanent partial disability (partial loss of wage earning capacity) could sue his or her employer for those benefits. For employers and insurers, this means potential liability claims for which they have not planned or budgeted.  In practical terms, this opinion will almost certainly be appealed to the Third District and likely to the Florida Supreme Court.   It may also be reviewed by the Legislature to correct the alleged defect. It is also noteworthy that the Florida Supreme Court is currently reviewing another case from the First District Court of Appeal,  Westpahl v. City of St. Petersburg, which addressed whether Section 440.15 of the Florida Statutes was constitutionally valid regarding “temporary permanent total disability.” We are watching the development of these cases with much interest.

David Mercer 

David joined the liability department at Butler firm in 2004. David received his Bachelor of Science, magna cum laude, in Political Science and Interdisciplinary Social Sciences from Florida State University in 1995. He received his Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, from the University of Miami in 1998. He was awarded the Order of the Coif upon graduation. David is a member of The Florida Bar and is admitted to practice in all of the state courts of Florida, as well as the United States District Courts for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Florida.

October 21, 2015 Blog PostWhat to do with racist employees?

The problem for employers arises when employees express those beliefs publicly. 

Read More »
October 15, 2015 Blog PostMarried to the Church: Potential Implications of Obergefell in the Context of Religious Discrimination

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Obergefell v. Hodges [1] may have far reaching implications in the world of religious organizations opposed to same-sex marriage. 

Read More »
February 25, 2015 Blog PostThe Case of the Millennial Juror

As Employment Litigators, we are always mindful of the varied perspectives, cultural backgrounds and potential biases that individuals may bring with them to the jury box, and later, to their deliberations. This is particularly true today, when individual perspectives are shaped so drastically by social media and the 24 hour news cycle. I recently came across an article entitled “Your Jury Box In the 21st Century”[1] that provided great insight into the mind of a very specific type of juror – the oft terror inducing “Millennial Juror.”...

Read More »

Key Points

Author Practice Area