fbpx

best imitation rolex watches site.

Written by: Rayford H. Taylor, Esq. The Court of Appeal was asked to again  interpret Section 440.093(3) Fla. Stat. concerning entitlement to temporary indemnity benefits based upon a mental injury arising out of a workers’ compensation accident in the case of Le’Tavia Jones v. State of Florida, Dept. of Corrections, and Div. of Risk Management, 1D20-1741 (July 29, 2021). On January 7, 2019, Ms. Jones was working in a correctional facility

Written by: Margaret H. Donahue, Esq. On July 27, 2021, the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission issued the attached advisory notice detailing new procedures for email submission of Forms 15,17,19, and 20 by Carriers.  As with prior versions of electronic submission, the Commission is requiring specific format to be followed and will assume no responsibility for transmittal errors or errors in submission that result in rejection of a submitted

Written by: Rayford H. Taylor, Esq. The First District Court of Appeal in the case of Patrick Sean Jones v. Grace Health Care, ______ So.2d ______, (1D19-1684, June 30, 2021) was presented with the question of whether an employer/carrier should be required to pay for an evaluation for a referral for medical marijuana.  The case involved an injured worker who sustained a work-related accident in 2001.  In 2017 the

Written by: Rayford H. Taylor, Esq. The First District Court of Appeal in the recent case of N. Hannoush Jewelers, Inc. v. Bly, 1D20-2432, (Fla. 1st DCA June 30, 2021) addressed the effect of an employee's receipt of unemployment compensation benefits (UC) on any award of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits.  The injured worker sought TPD benefits and the Employer/Carrier sent him forms to report any earnings he was

“Going the Distance: Special Considerations for Remote Employees in the Post-Pandemic Era,” CLM Magazine In an article published online in CLM Magazine on June 30, 2021, Partner Lissa F. Klein discusses workers’ compensation considerations for employers as remote work persists post-pandemic. “As the number of remote employees will continue to rise, it is inevitable that there will be an increasing number of work accidents involving remote employees,” she writes. “This is

Written by: Rayford H. Taylor, Esq. An employer/carrier must aggressively pursue obtaining an appointment with the newly authorized physician or risk having the injured worker select the alternate physician.  While we do not know what period of time is acceptable, we know that taking longer than 50 days from the request for a physician to the appointment of an alternate physician may be too long.  That can be difficult

Written by: Rayford H. Taylor, Esq. Circuit court judges in Florida have the authority to require provision of benefits ordered by a jcc but which are found to be willfully withheld.  Trial courts can use a Rule Nisi proceeding to not only order the provision of the benefit being denied, but also impose a monetary award based upon damages sustained by the injured worker because of the failure to

Written by Daniel Richardson, Esq. Last year the Georgia Supreme Court addressed the collision of two separate lines of precedent that the Court of Appeals had been trying to hold together with confusing results. This involved (1) the Scheduled Break Exception and (2) the Ingress and Egress Rule. In 1935, the Supreme Court first enunciated the idea of a lunch break exception to compensability. A worker was injured while

Written by: Rayford H. Taylor, Esq. The case of Stalwart Films, LLC v. Bernecker, 855 S.E.2d 120 (2021) involved a wrongful death action brought by a stunt performer’s family against the film production company and television show producer alleging negligence arising from his fatal fall during the filming of a television show.  The State Court entered an $8,000,000.00 judgment following a jury verdict for the family.  The company and

Written by: Rayford H. Taylor, Esq. The case of Stalwart Films, LLC v. Bernecker, 855 S.E.2d 120 (2021) involved a wrongful death action brought by a stunt performer’s family against the film production company and television show producer alleging negligence arising from his fatal fall during the filming of a television show.  The State Court entered an $8,000,000.00 judgment following a jury verdict for the family.  The company and