immunity , maJorcontriButingcauSeandimeevidence
Workers ’ Compensation Section Chair : AnthonyCortese – AnthonyV . Cortese , AttorneyatLaw
Three major Florida
workers ’ compensation appellate decisions were recently announced , one on workers compensation immunity , one on the major contributing cause rule , and one on IME evidence . This article will briefly review all three and provide contact information for the new OALJ e-filing site .
In TECO v Ganser , 1 the owner of a power plant contracted with outside entities to perform maintenance and repair work at the power plant . In response to negligence claims filed by employees of these outside entities who were injured at the power plant while performing the work , TECO asserted that it was entitled to workers compensation immunity as the statutory employer of these employees . The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge , who found that as a matter of law , TECO was not the statutory employer of these employees and is not entitled to workers compensation immunity under these circumstances .
In the second case , the claimant in Sanchez v . YRC and Sedgwick 2 asserted that the First District Court of Appeal should reverse a denial of his claim for medical care based on inadequate evidence that the work injury was the major contributing cause of the injury for which he
sought covered treatment . Sanchez had a prior injury at work , which was alleged to be a pre-existing condition . There was no evidence of an intervening incident or unrelated condition offered or even alleged . The First District reversed and remanded , holding that the Sanchez is not required to prove that the work injury is a major contributing cause of the overall medical condition in a case where the pre-existing condition is a work injury and there is no evidence of an intervening incident or unrelated condition .
In the third case , the First District also reversed the ruling of a Judge of Compensation Claims , who had denied a claim for surgery because the only authorized treating doctor gave an opinion that it was premature to consider surgery . In Thompson v . Escambia County School Board , 3 Thompson had presented the opinion of an IME doctor that surgery was not premature and in fact was recommended . The First District held that the IME evidence is admissible and had to be considered , and cannot be
amajordevelopmentin litigationoverLongshore anddefenseBaseact casesisthecreationofa websiteforfilingclaims andpaperworkand reviewingthedocket forcasesbeforethe officeofadministrative LawJudges .
ignored solely because the IME doctor is not an authorized , treating doctor .
Another major development that occurred in litigation over Longshore and Defense Base Act cases is the creation of a website for filing claims and paperwork and reviewing the docket for cases before the Office of Administrative Law Judges ( OALJ ), which handles formal proceedings for those cases . The site is efile . dol . gov . It is long overdue , and more complex than our state system , but it is now open and available to practitioners . Initial filings with the Department of Labor are still made at seaportal . dol . gov . A case goes into the OALJ system only after it is referred by the District Director for formal proceedings . n
1
___ So . 3d ___, No . 2D19-3091 ( Fla . 2d DCA Oct 16 2020 ) ( rehearing pending at the time of this writing ).
2
___ So . 3d __, No . 1D19-4231 ( Fla . 1st DCA Oct . 28 , 2020 )
3
302 So . 3d 936 ( Fla . 1st DCA 2020 ).
Author : Anthony V . Cortese , Attorney at Law
6 6 J A N - F E B 2 0 2 1 | H C B A L A W Y E R