work injury lawyer

Published on: December 24, 2017

Be Mindful of Workers’ Compensation Lien on Third-Party Settlements and Verdicts

If you are injured on-the-job, you are probably aware that you can seek no-fault benefits through your employer’s workers compensation insurer. But there is also the possibility, if another party was responsible in whole or in part in causing the accident, that you can pursue compensation from that individual or company (the third party). This moves forward as would any other Florida personal injury lawsuit, but with one important distinction: Your workers’ compensation insurer can impose a lien on whatever damages you collect for benefits they have already paid. The purpose is to avoid double recovery by the plaintiff.

In other words, you cannot collect damages for medical bills from the negligent third party that have already been paid by the workers’ compensation insurer. However, this doesn’t mean the defendant should be off the hook for paying those damages. It means rather the workers’ compensation insurer has grounds to seek a lien on those sums.

This is one of the reasons why individuals who file personal injury lawsuits after collecting workers’ compensation need to have a fierce legal advocate in their corner. Continue reading →

Published on: January 4, 2017

Newton v. Caterpillar – Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine Raised in Work Injury Lawsuit

By Dean Freeman

In many Florida injury lawsuits, plaintiffs must prove the defendant is negligent. That means proving defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, defendant breached that duty, the breach caused plaintiff’s injuries and the injuries are compensable. However, there are some situations in which one need not prove the defendant was negligent. One can assert vicarious liability for the negligent actions of another person. There are several examples, but one of those stems from ownership of a dangerous instrumentality.

The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is one that stems from common law and it holds that the owner of an inherently dangerous tool is liable for any injuries resulting from the operation of that tool. It’s a form of strict vicarious liability. In Florida, the 1938 state supreme court case of Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson resulted in the finding that motor vehicles are a type of dangerous instrumentality. That’s why an owner of a motor vehicle in Florida can be held liable for injuries caused by someone else’s negligent operation of said vehicle. The idea is that if you trust someone with a motor vehicle with knowledge and consent, you are responsible if it’s used negligently on a public road.

But there are questions that arise occasionally about what other objects may be considered a dangerous instrumentality. It matters a great deal when we’re considering which persons or entities can be liable. One such case recently before Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal was that of Newton v. Caterpillar et al, stemming from a work injury. Continue reading →

Published on: September 5, 2015

Moradiellos v. Gerelco Traffic Controls, Inc. – Highway Work Zone Death

By Dean Freeman

Highway work zones are dangerous both for the motorists who navigate them and the workers employed there.

The U.S. Department of Transportation reports an estimated 88,000 crashes happened in work zones in 2010. Most of these don’t lead to fatalities, but when they do, it can leave families reeling. When a worker is killed, he or she is often a major contributor to the family household income, and it’s important for families to explore all viable options for compensation to ensure future financial security.

Luckily, most if not all of these workers are entitled to some form of workers’ compensation. This is money paid out to an injured worker or, in the event of the worker’s death, his or her surviving, dependent family members. It is not necessarily in a workers’ compensation action to prove negligence, only that the accident occurred in the course and scope of employment. However, workers/family members who collect these benefits cannot pursue legal action against the employer for negligence. There may be an opportunity to file a third-party liability action, but that will depend on the circumstances of the case. Continue reading →