Case Law Update – Florida | New York | Texas

http://acevisionnepal.com/adventure-benefit/ Florida:

Hawkins v. Publix Super Markets, 1D14-5420, (11/12/2015): Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal reversed a judge's order suspending a worker's temporary partial disability benefits, saying the judge hadn't made sufficient findings to support the conclusion that the worker had voluntarily limited his income by refusing an offer of suitable employment.

Boley Centers v. Vines, 1D14-5869, (11/16/2015): Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a worker's two psychiatric hospitalizations were compensable forms of emergency care, but it said the judge of compensation claims lacked jurisdiction to order the worker's employer to pay the bills associated with this treatment.

Vasquez v. Romero, 1D15-0623, (11/09/2015): The 1st District Court of Appeal is standing by its prior ruling that a judge of compensation claims lost jurisdiction over a comp claim once the claimant dismissed his petition for benefits, but it said its ruling is limited to the specific facts of this case.

Babahmetovic v. Scan Design Florida/Zenith Insurance Co., 1D14-2986, (10/08/2015): An injured worker had a right to change his authorized treating physician even though his employer had denied his claim based on a preexisting condition, the Florida 1st District Court of Appeals ruled, reversing the judge of compensation claims.

Zavala v. Economic Development Commission of Mid-Florida, 1D14-4617, (10/15/2015): The 1st District Court of Appeal ducked a worker's constitutional challenge to Florida Statutes Section 445.009(11), saying it lacked jurisdiction to hear her arguments before her entitlement to benefits had been finally adjudicated.

Redaei v. Pharmerica, Specialty Risk Services, 1D15-1582, (10/22/2015): A judge of compensation claims abused her discretion by reducing the amount of a claimant attorney's request for fees and costs after the insurer's attorney filed a response to the request more than three months late, the Florida 1st District Court of Appeal ruled.

Frankel v. The Loxahatchee Club, 1D15-1289, (11/05/2015): Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that an employer was entitled to apportion part of a worker's need for shoulder surgery to his preexisting rotator cuff injury, but it failed to establish its entitlement to apportion to the worker's preexisting arthritis.

 

buy provigil egypt New York:

Matter of Strujan v. New York Hospital, 518465, (11/5/2015): A New York appellate court ruled that liability for a worker's 1997 injury could not yet be transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases because the claim had not yet been truly closed.

Ferrante v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 16062 102765/11 590817/11, (11/05/2015): A New York appellate court ruled that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority was not entitled to indemnification for a construction worker's personal injury claim, as a matter of law.

Matter of Schoales v. DiNapoli, 519852, (10/29/2015): A New York appellate court ruled that a police officer was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits for his injuries from foreseeable risks of his job.

Lichten v. New York Transit Authority, 520631, (10/29/2015): A New York appellate court ruled that a long-time bus driver was not entitled to an award of benefits for an alleged repetitive stress injury to his knees.

 

visibly Texas:

Pinkus v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 05-14-00892-CV, (11/05/2015): A business traveler's car accident while on his way to have dinner with his son was not within the course and scope of his employment, a Texas appellate court ruled.

American Casualty Co. of Reading Pennsylvania v. Bushman, 04-14-00685-CV, (11/04/2015): A Texas appellate court is standing by its prior decision that a truck driver was within the course and scope of his employment when he died in a car accident while on his way to the company's dispatch office to train a new employee. 

Painter v. Amerimex Drilling, 08-14-00134-CV, (11/03/2015): The 8th District Court of Appeals ruled that the standard of proof necessary to place an employee within the course and scope of his employment for the purposes of vicarious liable is higher than the standard required under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act.

Ballard v. Arch Insurance Co., 14-14-00647-CV, (10/29/2015): A Texas appellate court ruled that a worker who went blind after suffering an eye injury at work failed to prove it was the injury, and not his preexisting glaucoma, that caused his blindness.

 



Leave a Reply