News & Events

On May 26, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 1.442 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to remove any reference to non-monetary conditions in a Proposal for Settlement. In short, any Proposal for Settlement served after July 1, 2022 can no longer include conditions, such as the execution of a release, as a condition of the settlement. The only exception to this amended rule is that Proposals may be conditioned on the requirement that the Plaintiff dismiss his/her complaint against the defendant.

One of the major questions at the outset of a case is whether a court can take jurisdiction over it. The first determination is whether Florida is the appropriate state in which to file the workers compensation claim. Of course, if an accident happened in the State of Florida, a claim can probably be filed for benefits under the Florida Workers Compensation Act; Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes.  However, an employee may be able to file a claim in Florida for an accident that occurred outside of Florida if the employment contract was made in Florida or if the employment was principally based in Florida.  If you have an issue with an Employee seeking benefits in under Florida Workers Compensation, for an accident outside the State of Florida, we can provide guidance on possible defenses and investigation.   

The decentralized finance (DeFi) market is a new one with limitless possibilities. Along with the excitement come a number of risks in this nascent field. A lack of regulation, bad actors, and unstable systems have the potential to cause large losses. However, a new industry has emerged to meet the needs of people who want to participate in DeFi while protecting themselves against some of the potential risks. Now, people can purchase insurance against many of the losses they might encounter. However, like DeFi itself, this fledgling insurance market also has its own risks and challenges.

On April 28, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Assoc., Inc., in which the Court put to rest, once and for all, the Plaintiffs’ bar’s argument that the Court’s prior opinion in Joerg v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 176 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2015) had no application to the question of whether the Plaintiff may introduce the gross amount of his/her past medical bills into evidence. In Joerg, the Supreme Court held that the defense was not entitled to introduce evidence that the Plaintiff would be receiving Medicare or other benefits in the future and therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to introduce evidence of anticipated future medical expenses without reduction for anticipated future Medicare of other benefits. The Plaintiffs’ bar has been arguing for years that Joerg impliedly overruled the substantial District Court of Appeal precedent holding that a Plaintiff may only introduce into evidence the amount of his/her past medical expenses to the extent that those expenses had been paid by Medicare and not the gross amount of the bills before Medicare reduced them. 

Tom McCausland and Josh Nathanson, both partners in the Hollywood office, tried an admitted liability auto negligence case where Plaintiff sustained significant fractures to both wrists with surgery and hardware secured to both wrists. Plaintiff had additional claims of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and PTSD, which would require treatment for over 50 years following the accident. The defense was Plaintiff sustained a permanent injury from an orthopedic standpoint, but received a good result and did not need any future treatment and that she did not suffer from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. The defense stipulated to past medical bills of $126,439.51. The plaintiff’s attorney asked the Jury to award $20 million for her injuries and the Defense suggested the jury award $650,000. After deliberating for 3 hours, the jury returned a verdict of $1,465,439.51. There was over $5 million in coverage and there was never a demand of less than the policy limits.