Proposal (Montserrat Font) FINAL

1 Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. ATTORNEYS AND LEGAL STAFF; EXPERIENCE WITH WORKERS’

COMPENSATION LAW; and REPRESENTATIVE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC

CLIENTS ….......................................................................................................................1

B. INDIVIDUAL/FIRM AND ORGANIZATION ....................................................... 5

C. LEGAL SERVICES .................................................................................................... 6

D. OTHER QUALIFICATIONS OR EXPERIENCE ................................................... 7

E. REQUIRED INSURANCE.......................................................................................... 8

F. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND M/WBE PARTICIPATION .. 8

Equal Employment Opportunity………………………………………………………..8

Small/Micro Business Enterprise and Minority/Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE)

Participation .................................................................................................................... 8

EXHIBIT “1” EDUARDO E. NERET Resume ............................................................ 9

EXHIBIT “2”JAVIER A. FINLAY Resume ................................................................ 11

EXHIBIT “3” T. PETER NGUYEN Resume............................................................... 13

EXHIBIT “4”APPEALS & CASE HIGHLIGHTS…..…...………...………………..15


A. ATTORNEYS AND LEGAL STAFF; EXPERIENCE WITH

WORKERS’COMPENSATION and GENERAL LIABILITY MATTERS;

and REPRESENTATIVE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CLIENTS.

Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP, specializes in defending employers, carriers and

servicing agents in Workers’ Compensation matters. The Workers’ Compensation cases

will be handled by Eduardo E. Neret, Esq., Javier A. Finlay, Esq. and T. Peter Nguyen,

Esq.

Eduardo E. Neret, Esq.

Eduardo E. Neret graduated from the University of Florida in 1989 with a Bachelor

Degree in Business Administration. Before attending law school, Mr. Neret worked in the

United States House of Representatives in Washington D.C., as an Assistant Press

Secretary for the Honorable Congressman, Andy Ireland. Mr. Neret then attended Florida

State University College of Law and graduated with Honors in 1992. While attending Law

School, Mr. Neret clerked at the Florida Supreme Court for the Honorable Parker Lee

McDonald. Upon graduation from law school, attorney Neret clerked for the Honorable

James R. Jorgenson at the Third District Court of Appeal. After the one year commitment

to clerk at the Third District Court of Appeal, attorney Neret began his practice of law in

the private sector in October 1993. Mr. Neret was a shareholder at Akerman Senterfitt,

P.A., and he ran the workers’ compensation department while working for such firm. In

2001, Mr. Neret opened up his own practice.

Since October 1993, attorney Neret has concentrated his practice on defending

employers, servicing agents and carriers in workers’ compensation matters. Mr. Neret has

over 22 years practicing law in the area of Workers’ Compensation and has tried numerous

cases before all of the Judges of Compensation Claims in the Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and

West Palm Beach Districts of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Neret has

lectured to various professional organizations as well as insurance groups in the areas of

workers' compensation and wrongful termination. Specifically, Mr. Neret has lectured for

Lorman Education Services as well as for the National Business Institute. He has also

lectured in the area of employers' rights to reimbursement from the Special Disability Trust

Fund. He is presently a member of the Workers' Compensation Section of the Florida Bar.

Mr. Neret’s office is centrally located at 2100 Coral Way, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33145.

See Mr. Neret’s Résumé, attached hereto as Exhibit “1.”

Javier A. Finlay, Esq.

Javier A. Finlay is a partner with the firm. Javier graduated Cum Laude from the

Thomas M. Cooley Law School located in Lansing, Michigan in 2007. Subsequently,

Javier went to work for Robert T. Eglet, Esq., of Eglet Wall, named the National Lawyer

of the year in 2010 and Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2005 and 2012; the latter achievement

was in large part due to securing a $505 million dollar jury verdict award in Las Vegas,

Nevada. Thereafter, Mr. Finlay returned to Miami-Dade County and clerked for Hector J.

Lombana at the law firm of Gamba and Lombana where he was involved in all aspects of


this boutique law firm’s well known civil litigation practice. Mr. Finlay has litigated a

variety of cases involving auto accidents, medical malpractice, unsafe land/property,

insurance coverage disputes, workers’ compensation and slip and fall accidents. This

opportunity to prosecute such cases provided invaluable experience and insight regarding

how injured individuals review and evaluate their cases. For the past five years, Mr. Finlay

has concentrated his practice on Workers’ Compensation and General Liability defense

matters under the tutelage of Mr. Eduardo E. Neret. Mr. Finlay is a member of both the

Florida Bar and the Nevada Bar. He is also admitted to practice in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Florida and his professional affiliations include the

American Bar Association, Cuban American Bar Association and Miami Dade County Bar

Association. See Mr. Finlay’s Résumé, attached hereto as Exhibit “2.”

T. Peter Nguyen, Esq.

T. Peter Nguyen is a partner with the firm. He completed his undergraduate

education at the University of California at Irvine and received a Bachelor of Arts in

1993. Thereafter, he went on to serve the public as a police officer in the City of Orange,

California where his fluency in English, Vietnamese and Spanish proved invaluable to the

community.

Mr. Nguyen then attended the University Of Pittsburgh School Of Law where he

earned his Juris Doctor Degree in 1998. Upon graduation, he worked as judicial law clerk

for Judge Martin Kahn, Circuit Court Judge for the 11th Judicial Circuit (Special Division)

and former Chairman of the Florida Continuing Education Committee. Mr. Nguyen’s

responsibilities as a judicial law clerk included performing complex legal research and

composing memoranda of law as well as participating in caucuses with other senior judges

on diverse issues of law and procedure.

Mr. Nguyen has over 15 years of experience of defending Employers, Carriers and

Self-Insured in Workers’ Compensation claims. He has developed a particular adeptness

in the handling of self-insured and special accounts including representation of high

retention clients, self-insured hospitals and municipalities and the defense of wrap-up

policy claims. Moreover, Mr. Nguyen authored “Limitations on Workers’ Compensation

Immunity” and “Major Contributing Cause: Is It a Substantive Change or a Repackaging

of an Old Concept?”, published in The Bulletin (Dade County Bar Association Newspaper)

and has taught and continues to provide CEU courses his clients. See Mr. Nguyen’s

Résumé, attached hereto as Exhibit “3.”


Relevant Experience with Private/Public entities including Educational

Institutions and Municipalities.

The firm currently represents the following clients: United States Sugar Corp.;

Areas USA, Inc.; Burger King, Corp., Miami-Dade County School Board; the University

of Miami; The City of Hialeah; The City of Miami Beach: Tenet Health Care; Florida

Detroit Diesel; The City of Coral Gables; The City of Key West, The State of Florida; and

Barry University in workers’ compensation and/or General Liability matters. In the many

years of representing the foregoing entities, we have experience in dealing with in-house

counsel, City Attorneys, and Assistant City Attorneys along with their contracted third

party administrators and employer-designated workers’ compensation claims specialists

and understand how to streamline information to aid in decision making. The following is

a list of references for the above-referenced current clients:

Name/Address Institution Reference/Phone Number University of Miami Andrea Orange, Risk Manager/Exec. Dir.

1320 South Dixie Highway (305) 284-3163

Suite 1200, Coral Gables, FL 33146

Areas USA, Inc. Kirk D. Weiss

5301 Blue Lagoon Drive (305) 267-8510

Suite 690, Miami, Florida 33126

United States Sugar Corp. Edward Almeida, Esq.

111 Ponce de Leon Ave. (863) 902-2419

Clewiston, Florida 33440

City of Hialeah Robert Lloyd-Still, Risk Manager

Hialeah, FL 33010 (305) 883-8059

Miami Dade County School Board Naomi Kuker

(305) 995-7161

Enclosed, you will find a list of Case Highlights for significant matters handled on

behalf of the above-referenced clients and other high profile clients, attached hereto as

Exhibit “3.”


B. INDIVIDUAL/FIRM AND ORGANIZATION

Eduardo E. Neret, Esq., is the Managing Partner for the firm. His contact

information is as follows:

2100 Coral Way, Suite 400, Miami, FL 33145

Phone: (305) 423-3820

Fax: (305) 423-3821

Email: [email protected]

Mr. Neret, Mr. Finlay and Mr. Nguyen are accessible to the client on a daily basis.

Should the client need immediate attention, either attorney will be available. Should an

attorney not be available, an attorney will contact the client within the same business day

to address any concerns the client may have. In addition, the Firm’s central location makes

it feasible to travel to any meetings called for by the client in short notice. Lastly, the

firm’s paralegals will also be available to the client should a matter arise where an attorney

is not immediately available; nevertheless, an attorney will contact the client within the

same business day to address its concerns.

Mr. Neret has practiced Workers’ Compensation law for over 23 years beginning

with his time at Akerman Senterfitt, P.A. In addition, Mr. Neret has been charged with

handling over 16 reported appellate cases regarding workers’ compensation matters. Most

recently, Mr. Neret was successful in defending a claim involving the “going and coming

rule”; specifically, the compensability of an accident when an employee/claimant is

provided with company transportation. The law on this subject matter is thin at best. Mr.

Neret not only secured a judgment in the lower administrative tribunal on behalf of the

Employer/Carrier but also was successful in defending same when arguing the matter in

the First District Court of Appeals.

Javier A. Finlay, Esq., has concentrated his practice on civil litigation for the past

eight years; five of which have been primarily workers’ compensation and general liability

matters. Mr. Finlay has also been involved in the appellate practice of workers’

compensation cases by way of drafting Initial Briefs, Answer Briefs, and Reply Briefs. Mr.

Finlay has been successful in defending workers’ compensation cases on behalf of

Employers/Carriers/Servicing Agents and taking same to trial before the Judge of

Compensation Claims.

T. Peter Nguyen, Esq., has over 15 years of experience representing carriers and

large self-insured including but not limited to the City of Miami Beach, Tenet Healthcare

and Florida Power and Light. Mr. Nguyen has authored articles and taught seminars on

workers’ compensation issues surrounding immunity, tort liability, Heart and Lung Bill

litigation and evidentiary standards for permanent total disability benefits.

mailto:[email protected]


C. LEGAL SERVICES

At Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, we are committed to providing our clients with the

highest level of legal services with superior results in a cost effective manner. Our goal is

to ensure that each client receives individualized quality legal representation. We take

pride that all cases are handled by experienced attorneys who will aggressively defend

cases in which there is no liability, and who will work toward the early settlement of cases

where there is liability and exposure.

The attorneys’ role is to be involved in all facets of litigation, and pre-litigation

matters should said services be requested, including but not limited to:

Formulating case strategy

Conducting research

Engaging in effective motion practice

Developing a formidable discovery strategy including responding to discovery

requests

Attending hearings, trials, mediations and depositions

Negotiating settlement and washout settlements with opposing counsel

Pursuing workers’ compensation appellate practice including drafting Initial

Appellate Briefs, Answer Briefs and Reply Briefs and participating in Oral

Argument

When a new case is referred to the office, a paralegal is assigned to the file. Each

client will have the same paralegal assigned to them for all cases to create an efficient and

comfortable working environment. Therefore, assuming Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP, is

selected to represent the client, the client will have the same attorney and paralegal assigned

to all of its files. This will create a systematic approach whereby the claims handler,

attorney and paralegal will be familiar with each other resulting in a more efficient working

environment.


D. OTHER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

a. Collateral Matters. In addition to having practiced workers’ compensation

defense for twenty years before Judges of Compensation Claims, the firm has experience

in handling other collateral workers’ compensation matters such as litigating workers’

compensation liens and wrongful termination claims in Circuit Court. Furthermore, the

firm has particular experience litigating repetitive trauma and chemical exposure cases.

b. Appeals: Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP is also experienced in handling

workers’ compensation appeals at all appellate levels. This part of our practice adds much

value for our clients by creating a true full service workers’ compensation practice. Prior

to the filing of an appeal, the Firm expediently evaluates the viability of undertaking an

appeal including the construction of an appellate budget and timeline of events to so that

our clients can make an informed decision on whether to pursue an appeal.

c. Minority Business Enterprise: Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP, meets the

definition of Minority Business Enterprise under Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.01. The Firm is 100%

owned and controlled by members who are of Hispanic descent. Mr. Neret was born and

raised in Nicaragua, Central America. In addition, Mr. Finlay is a Cuban American native

of Miami, Florida and Mr. Nguyen is a Vietnamese American who immigrated to the

United States at age 4. Prior to the merger, the Law Offices of Eduardo E. Neret, P.A. was

certified as a Minority owned Business Enterprise and the new entity is currently seeking

such designation.

d. Case Highlights: Why take our word for it? Take a look at our Case

Highlights included in our composite Exhibit “2”. In addition, as part of the Exhibit, you

will find a list of our open and closed files representing a comprehensive client list, and

matters handled by our firm. Moreover, we have included therein a list of appeals to show

the client that we zealously advocate for our clients from the beginning to the end.


E. REQUIRED INSURANCE

Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP, has the required coverage for Workers’

Compensation, Commercial General Liability and Professional Liability. Upon a request,

proof will be provided.

F. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND M/WBE

PARTICIPATION

Equal Employment Opportunity: Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP, provides equal

employment opportunities (EEO) to all employees and applicants for employment without

regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,

national origin, age, disability, genetic information, marital status, amnesty, or status as a

covered veteran in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws. The Firm

complies with applicable state and local laws governing non-discrimination in employment

in every location in which the company has facilities. This policy applies to all terms and

conditions of employment, including, but not limited to, hiring, placement, promotion,

termination, layoff, recall, transfer, leaves of absence, compensation, and training.

Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP, expressly prohibits any form of unlawful employee

harassment based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or

expression, national origin, age, genetic information, disability, or veteran status. Improper

interference with the ability of the Firm’s employees to perform their expected job duties

is absolutely not tolerated.


EXHIBIT “1”

EDUARDO E. NERET 2100 CORAL WAY

SUITE 400

MIAMI, FL 33145

TELEPHONE: (305) 423-3820

FACSIMILE:(305) 423-3821

EMAIL: [email protected]

Eduardo E. Neret has over 20 years of experience specializing

in various areas of litigation, including state and federal workers’ compensation,

negligence, unemployment compensation, toxic tort, wrongful termination, and premises

liability.

Mr. Neret has concentrated his practice in the area of Workers’ Compensation since 1993

and has practiced and tried cases before most of the Judges of Compensation Claims in the

Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach Districts of the Division of Administrative

Hearings. Mr. Neret has lectured in the areas of workers’ compensation and wrongful

termination. He has also lectured in the area of employers’ rights to reimbursement from

the Special Disability Trust Fund. He is presently a member of the Workers’ Compensation

Section of the Florida Bar.

Representative Clients

Areas USA, Inc. City of Coral Gables

Barry University City of Hialeah

Burger King Corporation Florida Detroit Diesel

City of Key West City of North Miami

La Petite Academy Live Nation

U.S. Sugar Corporation University of Miami

State of Florida


Prior Legal Experience

Law Clerk, Honorable Parker Lee McDonald, Supreme Court of Florida 1990

Law Clerk, Honorable James R. Jorgenson, Third District Court of Appeal, 1992-1993

Associate Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. 1994-1999

Shareholder Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. 2000-2001

Lectures

"Workers' Compensation in Florida," Lorman Education Services, June 2001

"Workers' Compensation in Florida," National Business Institute, December 2000

"ADA, FMLA and Workers' Compensation in Florida," Lorman Education Services,

January & November, 2000

Education

1992 – J.D., Florida State University (with Honors)

1989 – B.S.B.A., University of Florida


EXHIBIT “2”

JAVIER A. FINLAY 2100 CORAL WAY

SUITE 400

MIAMI, FL 33145

TELEPHONE: (305) 423-3820

FACSIMILE:(305) 423-3821


Javier A. Finlay is a litigator with extensive experience in

defending cases involving claims of premises liability, automobile liability, and workers’

compensation. His many years of practice include representation of national and

international corporations, as well as local businesses. He has lectured on trending topics

regarding workers compensation matters, and he currently acts as an advisor to his

corporate clients while engaging in contractual negotiations with vendors including, but

not limited to, indemnification and defense provisions.

Mr. Finlay is a member of the State Bar in both the State of Florida and the State of Nevada,

and he is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District

of Florida. Additionally, Mr. Finlay’s professional affiliations include the American Bar

Association, Cuban American Bar Association, and the Dade County Bar Association.


American Tower Corp. Ideal Supply, Inc.

Areas USA, Inc. Miami Dade County Public Schools

Countach Corp. Vitas Healthcare

Grow With Us Academy

Practice Areas

Automobile Liability Insurance Defense

General Liability Workers’ Compensation


Admissions

Florida, Nevada and United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Associations

American Bar Association, Cuban American Bar Association and Dade County Bar

Association

Lectures

“Update on Workers’ Compensation Medical Benefits,” September 2015, Sedgwick

Presentation.

“Major Contributing Cause, Update on Case Law,” June 2015, University of Miami

Education

2007 - Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Juris Doctor, cum laude,

2003 - Florida International University; Bachelor of Business Administration


EXHIBIT “3”

T. PETER NGUYEN 2100 CORAL WAY

SUITE 400

MIAMI, FL 33145

TELEPHONE: (305) 423-3820

FACSIMILE: (305) 423-3821


T. Peter Nguyen specializes in the defense of carriers and self-insureds in workers’

compensation matter. He also practices in the area of “Heart and Lung Bill” cases

associated with hypertension and cardiac claims filed by First Responders. Mr. Nguyen

was a police officer prior to attending law school and has unique insight to these type of

cases.

Mr. Nguyen has practiced exclusively in the area of workers' compensation since 1999. He

has tried numerous cases before the Judges of Compensation Claims in the Miami, Fort

Lauderdale, Tampa, Jacksonville and West Palm Beach Districts of the Division of

Administrative Hearings. Mr. Nguyen has lectured on topics including but not limited to

workers’ compensation denials impact on tort remedies and has written articles on the

subject of workers’ compensation for the legal community.


ACE, ESIS Florida Power and Light

City of Miami Beach York Risk Services

Palmetto General Hospital Hialeah Hospital

Coral Gables Hospital North Shore Hospital

Florida Medical Center Delray Medical Center

Travelers/St. Paul Tenet Health


Prior Legal Experience

Law clerk, Judge Martin Kahn, Circuit Court Judge for the 11th Judicial Circuit (Special

Division) and former Chairman of the Florida Continuing Education Committee, 1998-

1999

Associate, Marcos, Rothman, et. al., 1999-2006

Partner, Marcos Rothman, et. al., 2006-May 2014

Partner of, NERET, FINLAY & NGUYEN, LLP, August 2015 to present

Lectures

"“Limitations on Workers’ Compensation Immunity” , December 1999, The

Bulletin(Dade County Bar Association)

“Major Contributing Cause: Is It a Substantive Change or a Repackaging of an Old

Concept?”, May 2000, The Bulletin

“Workers’ Compensation Immunity and Denial of Claims”, CEU course 2013

Education

1998 – J.D., University of Pittsburgh School of Law

1993 – B.A., University of California, Irvine


Exhibit “4”

I. APPEALS

1. Burroughs v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 2013 WL 627116 (Fla. 1st DCA February 20, 2013):

Successfully represented the Employer/Servicing Agent in a workers’ compensation

claim wherein employee claimed that accident while traveling to work in a company

vehicle was compensable. The Employer/Servicing Agent defended the claim on the

basis that the Going and Coming Rule applied. The ultimate question was whether the

employee was assigned a company vehicle for his “exclusive personal use.” The Judge

of Compensation Claims denied the accident as compensable, and the First District

Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the JCC.

2. Avery v. City of Coral Gables, 100 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012): Represented the

Employer/Servicing Agent in a workers’ compensation proceeding to de-authorize a

psychiatrist and a psychotherapist who treated the claimant on a weekly basis for nine

years without the claimant making any progress. The Employer/Servicing Agent was

successful at trial in de-authorizing the physicians, but on appeal the First District Court

of Appeal reversed holding that because the claimant had reached maximum medical

improvement (MMI) and had been accepted as permanently and totally disabled (PTD),

by definition claimant could not make appropriate progress in recuperation because

MMI implies that no further curative treatment is necessary.

3. City of Hialeah v. Burke, 90 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012): Case involved protracted

litigation involving several Final Hearings where claimant had been denied Permanent

Total Disability Benefits and Temporary Total Disability Benefits after the expiration

of 104 weeks of temporary indemnity benefits. Claimant moved for Modification of

Final Order which had denied Permanent Total Disability Benefits, and the Judge of

Compensation Claims modified the Final Order and awarded PTD benefits. The

Employer/Servicing Agent appealed the Final Order awarding PTD an argued that there

was no change in medical circumstances justifying a modification of the previous

denial of PTD. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed without a published

decision.

4. Gonzalez v. University of Miami, 46 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010): This case

involved the interpretation of the major contributing cause. The Employer/Servicing

Agent successfully argued before the Judge of Compensation Claims that the accident

was not the major contributing cause of the diagnosis and need for treatment. The

claimant had previously been involved in a work related accident requiring over nine


years of chiropractic treatment. The claimant appealed the case, and while the case

was on a appeal, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion that the major

contributing cause does not apply when the pre-existing condition is due to an industrial

accident. This prompted the Employer/Servicing Agent to file Notice of Concession

of Error.

5. Clark v. University of Miami, 46 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010): The

Employer/Servicing Agent successfully defended a claim for authorization of knee

surgery using the opinion of an EMA. The claimant appealed, and the First District

Court of Appeal affirmed the opinion of the Judge of Compensation Claims denying

the request for the surgery.

6. Valdes v. Barry University, 46 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010): Case involved

multiple appeals after Employer/Servicing Agent moved to compel enforcement of

settlement agreement, and the Judge of Compensation Claims entered an Order

certifying the matter to circuit court for contempt purposes. Claimant appealed and the

First District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Florida Detroit Diesel v. Nathai, 28 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010): The claimant was

awarded a second opinion by the Judge of Compensation Claims even though the

treating orthopedist opined that it was not orthopedically medically necessary to have

a second opinion. The Employer/Servicing Agent appealed, and the First District Court

of Appeal held this was a matter of competent substantial evidence for the JCC.

8. Department of Children & Families v. Burroughs, 22 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009):

The Judge of Compensation Claims awarded medical treatment to the claimant

specifically, an MRI, Flector patches, and an evaluation with a neurosurgeon. The

Employer/Servicing Agent appealed arguing that there was no competent substantial

evidence to support the award of such benefits, and the First District Court of Appeal

affirmed the Judge of Compensation Claims.

9. Amesquita v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 993 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008): The claimant

sustained a compensable accident and was able to return to work light duty. The

claimant alleged he was not capable of performing his light duty occupation, and the

Employer/Servicing Agent denied Temporary Partial Disability Benefits. The Judge of

Compensation Claims agreed with the Employer/Servicing Agent and denied TPD

benefits. The claimant appealed, and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the

denial of Temporary Partial Disability Benefits.


10. Cartaya v. Coastline Distribution, 937 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006): Successfully

defended the Employer/Servicing Agent in a claim involving post lump sum settlement

of the case. The claimant wanted payment of additional medical bills, and the

Employer/Servicing Agent argued that the settlement was clear and unambiguous. The

First District Court of Appeal held that the claimant was not entitled to payment of

medical bills per the agreement of the parties

11. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Henson, 787 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), approved, 823 So. 2d

104 (Fla. 2002): Claimant was agricultural worker who claimed that he had been

exposed to pesticides and herbicides while working for the Employer. At trial, the

Employer/Servicing Agent challenged the admissibility of the opinions of the experts.

The Judge of Compensation Claims allowed the expert testimony and ruled in favor of

the claimant finding that there was an exposure. The Employer/Servicing Agent

appealed. The District Court of Appeal, affirmed and certified a question to the Florida

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, held that, as a matter of first impression, the Frye

general acceptance standard for admissibility of novel scientific evidence applied to

workers' compensation cases.

12. Jauma v. City of Hialeah, 758 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000): Resident of street onto

which city contractor had pumped muddy water from excavation brought personal

injury action against City after he slipped and fell from curb. The Circuit Court Judge

granted summary judgment to the City. Resident appealed. The District Court of

Appeal held that there was a question of fact as to whether the City could be liable for

failing to maintain its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition and that open and

obvious nature of the hazard did not relieve City of liability.

13. Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 693 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997): Workers'

compensation claimant appealed from order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.,

which denied in part and granted in part her claim for temporary partial disability (TPD)

benefits. The District Court of Appeal held that: (1) Court had jurisdiction to consider

claimant's appeal despite absence of ruling with regard to portion of claim which was

ripe for adjudication and fully tried; (2) JCC's failure to sufficiently explain its denial

of portion of claim necessitated remand for clarification or reconsideration of evidence;

and (3) JCC's failure to rule on portion of claim constituted reversible error

necessitating remand for entry of ruling.


II. CASE HIGHLIGHTS

The following is a list of significant cases the firm has litigated over the last few

years:

Rodger Burroughs v. United States Sugar Corporation

This claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on his way to work from

his home. The claimant was provided with a company vehicle. The claimant was allowed

to use the company vehicle to commute to and from work. This commute was considered

personal use. Per the company policy and testimony of all witnesses, the claimant was

allowed to use the company vehicle for additional personal use with permission from his

supervisor. The Employer/Servicing Agent took the position that the accident was not

compensable under the Going and Coming Rule. This rule provides that accidents while

traveling to and from work are not work related even if the employer provides

transportation as long as the transportation is provided for the “exclusive personal use” of

the employee. Neither Chapter 440 or case law defines what constitutes “exclusive

personal use.” The Employer/Servicing Agent argued successfully before the trial and

appellate courts that the claimant had exclusive personal use and the accident was not

compensable.

Ernestine Williams v. State of Florida

The claimant, a 58 year old former employee of the State of Florida, filed a claim

for Permanent Total Disability Benefits. The accident was accepted as compensable, and

the only issue was whether the claimant was capable of performing at least sedentary

employment within a 50 mile radius of her home. Through aggressive vocational re-

employment, the Employer/Carrier was able to prove to the Judge of Compensation Claims

that the claimant had a substantial earning capacity. The Judge of Compensation Claims

denied the claim for PTD.

Mirta Groseclose v. Aptimum Oncology

The claimant sustained a compensable accident requiring several surgeries to her

shoulder and ultimately requiring a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. The claimant

exhausted her 104 weeks of temporary indemnity benefits, and the issue was the proper

standard to determine Permanent Total Disability Benefits in the absence of reaching

maximum medical improvement but after the expiration of the maximum 104 weeks of

temporary indemnity benefits. The Judge of Compensation Claims agreed with the

arguments of the Employer/Servicing Agent that the test to determine PTD was whether

upon reaching MMI, the claimant would be capable of performing at least sedentary


employment. The Judge of Compensation Claims denied the claim for Permanent Total

Disability Benefits.

William Burke v. City of Hialeah

This case involved a Firefighter with a claim for Permanent Total Disability

Benefits due to uncontrollable hypertension. The Employer/Servicing Agent argued that

the claimant had a duty to mitigate his damages including exhausting all available medical

care. The Judge of Compensation Claims agreed with the Employer/Servicing Agent and

denied the claim for Permanent Total Disability Benefits. Claimant then moved for

Modification based upon a change of conditions, and the case was ultimately decided on

appeal.

Adelfa Morales v. University of Miami

The claimant filed an exposure claim against the University of Miami alleging that

her job as a Laboratory Technician was the cause of her allergic rhinitis. Claimant had

worked for several years with as a Lab Technician handling rats. She developed allergic

rhinitis. After extensive discovery, the Employer and Servicing Agent were able to prove

that her job as a Laboratory Technician did not cause the allergic rhinitis.

Donald Gaddy v. United States Sugar Corporation

Successfully defended a Permanent Total Disability Claim filed by an Equipment

Operator who sustained and injury to his right knee. Claimant was arguing that based on

his physical restrictions, educational level and transferrable skills, he was permanently and

totally disabled. The Employer/Servicing Agent successfully argued to the Judge that the

employer had a job available for the claimant and that there were other jobs the claimant

was capable of performing.

Marva Clark v. University of Miami

This claimant has brought several claims against the employer. The first claim

resulting in a Final Hearing was a request for authorization of surgery recommended by

the authorized treating provider. The Employer/Servicing Agent successfully argued to

the Judge of Compensation Claims that the surgery was not medically necessary nor

indicated by the medical evidence. The claimant appealed the Final Order denying the

surgery, and the case is now before the First District Court of Appeal.

The second claim which resulted in a separate Final Hearing was a claim for

Permanent Total Disability Benefits. The Employer/Servicing Agent through the

testimony of a vocational rehabilitation expert was able to prove that the claimant was

voluntarily limiting her income because the claimant had a substantial earning capacity.


There were a significant number of sedentary and light duty jobs the claimant could

perform within her limitations.

James Smith v. University of Miami

Successfully defended the University of Miami in a workers’ compensation claim

by a 54 year old police officer seeking Permanent Total Disability Benefits. The claimant

was involved in an accident in 1994. He subsequently applied for social security disability

and was accepted as disabled by the Social Security Administration. The Judge of

Compensation Claims found that the University of Miami conclusively proved that the

claimant had a substantial earning capacity, and thus denied the claimant Permanent Total

Disability Benefits. The case establishes that the determinations of the Social Security

Administration are not binding on the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Abraham Fernandez v. University of Miami

Obtained ruling from Judge of Compensation Claims that diagnostic tests were not

reasonable or medically necessary. Claimant sustained compensable accident and sought

medical treatment. The authorized medical provider recommended diagnostic tests which

the University of Miami and its third party servicing agent denied as not being medically

necessary. The case was litigated and proceeded to final hearing. Judge of Compensation

Claims denied the diagnostic tests and ruled in favor of the University of Miami.

Jacqueline Taojours v. University of Miami

Successfully defended the University of Miami in claim by employee who was

walking down the stairwell when she felt a pop in her knee. The claimant was seeking

compensability of the accident and authorization for orthopedic physician. The

Employer/Servicing Agent denied the compensability of the accident on the basis that the

claimant failed to timely report the accident within thirty days after the accident as

mandated by Fla. Stat. 440.185(1). The Employer/Servicing Agent also denied the claim

arguing that the employee suffered from an idiopathic condition and that the injury did not

arise out of employment. Judge of Compensation Claims ruled in favor of the University

of Miami.

Ileana Valdes v. Barry University

Successfully moved to enforce settlement agreement. Parties entered settlement

agreement at private mediation. After mediation, claimant refused to execute settlement

agreement. Barry University moved to enforce the settlement agreement. After a hearing,

the Judge of Compensation Claims entered order enforcing agreement. Claimant moved

for rehearing and Judge of Compensation Claims denied request for rehearing. Claimant

appealed and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Order. The Employer/Carrier


then moved to Certify the Matter to Circuit Court for Enforcement, and the claimant

appealed again. The First District Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal.

City of Hialeah

Represented the City of Hialeah in multiple workers' compensation claims

involving repetitive trauma cases. The claimants were alleging that due to repetitive

motion at work they developed either carpal tunnel syndrome, tenosynovitis, tennis elbow,

or ulnar neuropathy.

The Firm currently represents the City of Hialeah to evaluate multiple claimants

receiving Permanent Total Disability Benefits as well as Social Security Disability Benefits

to determine appropriate offsets.

Vicky Kellogg v. City of Hialeah

Successfully defended City of Hialeah against claim by former employee alleging

carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of repetitive trauma. Case was heavily litigated with

multiple expert witnesses. Judge of Compensation Claims found that the claimant’s carpal

tunnel was not related to her accident

Robert Ward v. City of Coral Gables

Successfully defended a claim for Permanent Total Disability benefits. Claimant

suffered a compensable back injury. After receiving extensive medical treatment, the

claimant filed a claim for Permanent Total Disability benefits. The City of Coral Gables

was able to prove through extensive vocational testimony that the claimant voluntarily

limited his income and that he had a substantial earning capacity.

Silva v. Hialeah Hosptial

A claim for cervical injury was denied. However, medical evidence suggested

possible repetitive trauma and exposure could have reached seven figures as the Claimant

was a high wage earner in the medical field. As Claimant’s settlement expectations were

unreasonable, trial was deemed necessary and defense prevailed at the trial and appellate

levels. Therefore, it amounted to a defense verdict.

Lopez v. Coral Gables Hospital

Elderly Claimant (medical doctor in Cuba) who worked for the hospital as a

technician in the morgue. Claimant sustained injury to his head and neck while in the

course and scope of employment. Based on his advanced age and severity of injury,


Claimant was a viable candidate for permanent total disability benefits and due to prompt

and thorough discovery, case settlement for $30,000.00 which a fraction of full exposure.

Streib v. City of Miami Beach

Claimant was an elderly person who was accepted as permanently and totally

disabled. Claimant filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits to go beyond the

age 75 limit. Defense won as a matter of law and later appeal, the First District Court of

Appeals declined to entertain Claimant’s Constitutional Challenge based on Age

Discrimination.

Documents

Proposal (Montserrat Font) FINAL