The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal was without prejudice and a PFB could be refiled, or .pursuant- to section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(4) does not confer jurisdiction on the JCC, because that statute applies only to disputes . . . Co., 28 So.3d 202, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[A] carrier can obtain contribution pursuant to section 440.42 . . . Conibear Equip., Inc., 854 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“[Section 440.42(8) [now renumbered as . . .
. . . We agreed and determined that section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes, which “governs the division of liability . . . non-compensability in a case as that presented in Staffmark, an E/C may instead find a remedy in section 440.42 . . . interpretation of Staffmark would render meaningless our determination that an E/C may find a remedy in section 440.42 . . . Under Claimant’s interpretation, the E/C in this case would have no remedy pursuant to section 440.42 . . . By conflating section 440.15(5)(b) with section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes, our court has confused the . . .
. . . Specifically, section 440.42(1), Florida Statutes (2008), provides that ”[e]very policy or contract of . . .
. . . determine if a workers’ compensation policy is in effect, has been properly cancelled pursuant to section 440.42 . . . See § 440.42(3), Fla. . . . is where there is duplicative or dual coverage, and both policies carry the same “effective date.” § 440.42 . . . See §§ 440.381(6)(a), 440.42(3), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .
. . . Purportedly relying on section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes (2005), and citing Pearson v. . . . Section 440.42 and Pearson have no application here. . . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1991), is substantially identical to Section 440.42(4), Florida . . .
. . . than claiming non-compensability in cases such as this, an E/C may instead find a remedy in section 440.42 . . .
. . . Analysis We begin our analysis by recognizing that section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes (2001), allows . . . See § 440.42(4), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . We have held, however, a carrier can obtain contribution pursuant to section 440.42(4) only if the carrier . . .
. . . Section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes (2003), not section 440.09(l)(b), controls the case under review. . . . Coach USA, 791 So.2d 1138, 1142-43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), that section 440.42(3) [now section 440.42(4) . . . “The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42(3) is whether the second compensable . . . Section 440.42(3) thereafter allows the deputy [JCC] to divide liability according to each carrier’s . . . Section 440.42(4) provides: When there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers is liable . . .
. . . the subject of this appeal, appellee asserted that it properly cancelled the contract under sections 440.42 . . .
. . . Section 440.42, Florida Statutes, codifies a right of contribution between carriers “when one of the . . . only with respect to payments made after it had knowledge or notice of its potential liability.” § 440.42 . . .
. . . Finally, section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, controls the division of liability between carriers for . . . “The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42(3) is whether the second compensable . . . Where liability is divided among two or more carriers pursuant to section 440.42(3), attorney’s fees . . . Therefore, section 440.42(3) can be applied only when each of the contending employer/carriers is hable . . . Accordingly, pursuant to the plain language of section 440.42(3), Conibear is only entitled to contribution . . .
. . . The next step is determining liability between multiple employers/carriers under section 440.42(3).” . . .
. . . (3), Florida Statutes (1993), and misplaces reliance on cases decided under section 440.42(3) concerning . . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1995), provides: When there is any controversy as to which of two . . . contributing cause” provisions took effect, the majority opinion misapprehends the reach of section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3) is a purely procedural provision. . . . Section 440.42(3) remains a necessary part of the Workers’ Compensation Law, despite the changes that . . . However, the legislature did not include section 440.42 in its amendments. . . . As the legislature did not substantially change section 440.42 in its 1994 amendments, we assume that . . . The next step is determining liability between multiple employers/carriers under section 440.42(3). . . . “The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42(3) is whether the second compensa-ble . . . Section 440.42(3) thereafter allows the deputy [JCC] to divide liability according to each carrier’s . . .
. . . the JCC has jurisdiction to decide coverage disputes between a carrier and an employer under section 440.42 . . .
. . . The judge of compensation claims ruled that the second carrier was entitled under section 440.42(3), . . .
. . . present proceedings by filing a motion for contribution, reimbursement, and/or exoneration under section 440.42 . . . repetitive trauma or exposure suffered in the course and scope of employment results in injury, section 440.42 . . . Mathis, 644 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that subsection 440.42(3) vests the judge of compensation . . .
. . . But if the question may later arise, the parties should be aware of the provisions of section 440.42( . . .
. . . The JCC noted the argument by North River that because Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes — the statute . . . Thus, under existing law predating the enactment of section 440.42(3), Planet Reliance would have been . . . Turning again to the language of section 440.42(3), we observe that the statute speaks of the liabilities . . .
. . . hearing was held on the claims for benefits and Travelers’ claim for reimbursement pursuant to section 440.42 . . . Subsection 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1987), establishes the procedure for obtaining reimbursement . . . 440.15(5) for apportionment of permanent benefits in disputes between claimants and carriers, subsection 440.42 . . . In Paige, this court explained: nowhere in section 440.42(3) is it mandated that the judge is required . . .
. . . from an order of a judge of compensation claims granting a claim for reimbursement pursuant to section 440.42 . . . claimant, Inelda Smith’s claim, and filed a claim for reimbursement pursuant to Florida Statute Section 440.42 . . . Florida Statute 440.42(2), states: When duplicate or dual coverage exists by reason of two different . . . FCF until 23 days after the date of accident, no duplicate or dual coverage existed pursuant to F.S. 440.42 . . .
. . . on the risk at the time of two separate industrial accidents, pursuant to the provisions of Section 440.42 . . .
. . . Wilson, 509 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes. . . . Therefore, we conclude that the JCC erred in failing to apportion liability pursuant to Section 440.42 . . .
. . . an action in which Home Insurance is seeking reimbursement from the University pursuant to section 440.42 . . .
. . . The issue raised in Peninsular was whether, pursuant to section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes (1969) (which . . . In contrast, it seems to me that the relevant language of section 440.42(2) may not be read as imposing . . . Section 440.42(2) reads, in relevant part, that “[n]o contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier . . . I am unable to find in the language used by the legislature in section 440.42(2) anything to support . . . Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: “No contract or policy of insurance issued by a . . . due to the failure of ESIF to give the 30 days’ notice of cancellation required pursuant to section 440.42 . . . or more from the date the notice is mailed, the notice is void” for failure to comply with section 440.42 . . . We find Aetna’s position is convincing and comports with the legislative intent of sections 440.42(2) . . . The deputy commissioner recognized such an immediate cancellation did not comply with section 440.42( . . .
. . . Claimant as their defense, and in addition, sought a claim against the Employer/F.I.G.A. pursuant to F.S. 440.42 . . . into between Home Insurance Company and the claimant and said reimbursement will be pursuant to F.S. 440.42 . . . settlement document specifically mentions a pending reimbursement claim against FIGA pursuant to section 440.42 . . . Home only met its own obligations and was not entitled to reimbursement from FIGA pursuant to section 440.42 . . .
. . . Section 440.42(3) confers jurisdiction upon the JCC to adjudicate a controversy as to which of two carriers . . .
. . . Wilson, 509 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes. . . .
. . . Section 440.42(3) Florida Statutes authorizes the Judge of Compensation Claims to allocate responsibility . . .
. . . with different carriers at risk, a division of liability between the carriers, pursuant to Section 440.42 . . . It should be noted that section 440.42(3) authorizes a judge to allocate responsibility and order reimbursement . . .
. . . to have effectively canceled the policy, it was necessary for it to notify Hoy pursuant to section 440.42 . . .
. . . See § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. . . .
. . . that ESIF did not give 30 days’ notice of cancellation of insurance coverage required pursuant to § 440.42 . . . Sec. 440.42(2), Fla.Stat. (1987), states, in pertinent part: No contract or policy of insurance issued . . . 1987), in pertinent part, states: Notice of cancellation or expiration of a policy as set out in s. 440.42 . . . The deputy determined that although the purported “immediate” cancellation did not comply with § 440.42 . . . King, supra, and reversed, stating that the failure to comply with 440.42(2), Fla.Stat., rendered the . . .
. . . to qualify terminology in earlier opinions precluding any allocation between carriers under section 440.42 . . . reciting Rowe’s overbroad statement that “[disputes between carriers ... are governed rather by Section 440.42 . . . claims may be governed by that section and numerous others in addition to (not rather than) section 440.42 . . . Relevant to the resolution of this issue is Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides . . . However, because of the unequivocal language of Section 440.42(3), we conclude that the result reached . . . Catinella, 129 So.2d 133 (Fla.1961), the supreme court interpreted the 1959 version of section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3) then permits the carrier paying such benefits (either voluntarily or in compliance . . . School Board of Nassau County and the other cases mentioned above, nowhere in section 440.42(3) is it . . .
. . . condition, represents CSE to support the JCC’s final determination of liability, as required by section 440.42 . . . When dividing responsibility under Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1983), which is the issue at . . . Section 440.42(3), on the other hand, controls the division of liability between carriers for benefits . . .
. . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, authorizes the deputy to allocate responsibility and order reimbursement . . .
. . . Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, (1983), disallows the expiration or cancellation of a workers’ compensation . . .
. . . on the risk at the time of the second accident (carrier 2) sought reimbursement, pursuant to section 440.42 . . .
. . . . § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. (1985); Flagship National Bank of Broward County v. . . .
. . . Ardmore’s notice of controversy between carriers and request for reimbursement pursuant to section 440.42 . . .
. . . Further, pursuant to Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, Hartford filed a claim for reimbursement against . . . whether Hartford or Continental was to be responsible for payment of Pis-seri’s claim pursuant to Section 440.42 . . .
. . . Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, provides that: No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier . . . coverage immediately, the deputy recognized that such immediate cancellation would not comply with section 440.42 . . . In accordance with Peninsular Fire, Travelers’ failure to comply with section 440.42(2) in the present . . .
. . . therefore, benefits should have been awarded under the policy with the later effective date, citing section 440.42 . . .
. . . denying reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits from State Farm Insurance Company under Section 440.42 . . . notice or knowledge of its potential liability for compensation and medical benefits pursuant to Section 440.42 . . . The action for reimbursement is governed by Section 440.42, Florida Statutes (1981), which states: If . . . carrier had the effect of reversing the deputy’s finding that reimbursement was not proper under Section 440.42 . . . accident and its potential liability requires State Farm to reimburse Hill, Richards under Section 440.42 . . .
. . . appeals an order of the deputy commissioner dismissing its claim for reimbursement pursuant to Section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3) provides that “[w]hen there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers . . . correct in his determination that he had no jurisdiction to consider Blue Cross’ claim under section 440.42 . . .
. . . 417 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3) thereafter allows the deputy to divide liability according to each carrier’s responsibilities . . .
. . . Numerous decisions of this court construing sections 440.02(18) and 440.42(3) of the workers’ compensation . . . and that in situations involving a dispute between two carriers the deputy was empowered by section 440.42 . . . the authority of a deputy commissioner to apportion medical benefits between carriers under section 440.42 . . .
. . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1977), provides in part: "[A]nd if one of the carriers voluntarily . . .
. . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1981), authorizes the deputy to adjudicate inter-carrier liability . . .
. . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1982). . . .
. . . risk at the time of the employee’s second accident for reimbursement, under the provisions of Section 440.42 . . . 417 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982): “The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42 . . . an insurer’s claim for reimbursement against another insurer, pursuant to the provisions of section 440.42 . . . The majority, however, apparently overlooks the continuing effect of Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes . . . Under Section 440.42(3), the deputy commissioner is empowered to apportion the medical benefits awarded . . . While 440.42(3) grants the deputy commissioner (deputy) jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies between . . .
. . . overpayment made by GAB pursuant to an order of the deputy would be subject to the reimbursement terms of § 440.42 . . .
. . . compliance with the policy provision requiring notice to the insured and Florida Statutes 440.185(7) and 440.42 . . . Florida Statutes 440.42(2) provides for policy cancellation with notice sent to the division and the . . . 440.185(7) provides that “[n]otice of cancellation or expiration of a policy as set out in section 440.42 . . .
. . . Paul voluntarily compensated claimant, pursuant to Section 440.42, Florida Statutes, at the rate of $190.00 . . . Paul under the provisions of Section 440.42(3). . . . The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42(3) is whether the second compensable . . . Section 440.42(3) thereafter allows the deputy to divide liability according to each carrier’s responsibility . . .
. . . Farm Bureau’s letter of assumption, which purported to be effective July 1, 1978, pursuant to Section 440.42 . . . Florida Farm Bureau could not effectively terminate coverage in less than thirty days, under Section 440.42 . . . In our opinion, the statutory presumption of Section 440.42(2) could be applied to the competing binders . . . Section 440.42(2) provides, in pertinent part: However, when duplicate or dual coverage exists by reason . . . Harmel Constructors, Inc., 3 FCR 298 (1958), cited by appellees, was decided under a version of § 440.42 . . .
. . . responsibility for payment of claimant’s medical treatment of his psychiatric condition and Section 440.42 . . . Under Section 440.42(3), the deputy commissioner is empowered to apportion the medical benefits awarded . . .
. . . We recognize that § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. (1977), permits the Deputy to determine the responsibility of . . . Therefore, § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. (1977) is inapplicable, and accordingly, the Deputy had no power to . . .
. . . Applying Section 440.42(3) F.S. (1978) the commissioner placed the risk on American States until actual . . .
. . . Sections 440.42(2) and 440.185(7) Florida Statutes (1979) requiring notice to the Worker’s Compensation . . . His testimony indicates that American Casualty complied with Section 440.42(2) and 440.185(7) but there . . .
. . . See § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. See also Seasons v. O’Day, 379 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . . .
. . . because Allstate failed to cancel the Mous-settes’ workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with § 440.42 . . .
. . . Disputes between carriers are governed by § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat., which empowers the judge to divide . . .
. . . more employers”, or between self-insured employers on the same subject, are governed rather by Section 440.42 . . .
. . . Section 440.42(2), Fla.Stat. . . . The deputy commissioner’s application of § 440.42(2), Fla.Stat., was therefore inappropriate. . . .
. . . contractor’s rights are to seek reimbursement against the subcontractor, but not to refuse payment [§ 440.42 . . .
. . . Manpower and Transamerica then commenced an action against Shell under Section 440.42, Florida Statutes . . . of Industrial Claims was concerned with determining who was the injured man’s employer under Section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1975), provides: When there is any controversy as to which of two . . .
. . . Appellant asserts that Florida Statute § 440.42(3) (1967) defines and limits the judicial authority of . . . contends that the Industrial Claims Court does not have jurisdiction over the situation sub judice under § 440.42 . . . Appellant reasons that if 440.42(3) does not apply to the instant case, then 440.41 cannot be employed . . . The same Court also said the following: Fla.Stat. § 440.42(3) (1967) F.S.A. allows the Industrial Commission . . .
. . . Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, F.S. . . .
. . . . § 440.42(3) (1967), F.S.A., allows the Industrial Commission to settle a dispute between two or more . . .
. . . Rather, it concerned the interpretation of Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and its application . . .
. . . See Section 440.42(3) and City of Lakeland v. Catinella, Fla. 1961, 129 So.2d 133. . . . Under Section 440.42(3), F.S.A. either carrier can furnish such benefits and be reimbursed for any sums . . .
. . . In response to the claim Venning and Ward, pursuant to Section 440.42, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., asserted . . .
. . . Assessed $1898.79 Penalty Payments: * 12/31/52 Interest $ 92.99 1/2/53 Interest 689.88 6/19/53 Tax 440.42 . . .
. . . . § 440.42, F.S.A., prior to amendment in 1957, but the deputy was of the opinion the controlling statute . . . to this cause was that effective on the date of the second accident, March 11, 1957, and since Sec. 440.42 . . . Sec. 440.42(3) which became effective on July 1, 1959 (this 1959 amendment merely added to the original . . . Sec. 440.42(3), as amended in 1959, was effective on the date the controversy arose. . . . The deputy reasoned that whether jurisdiction was granted under Sec. 440.-20(8) or Sec. 440.42(3), the . . .
. . . covering the crucial period which had not been can-celled in accordance with the requirements of § 440.42 . . .
. . . must take the gross receipts of Paradise from 1935 to September 16, 1948, inclusive, which total $744,-440.42 . . .