IN THE
Q 3 2026
NOW
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION EDITION
THE
Workers’ Compensation
INTERSECTION
EDITOR’S LETTER
WELCOME Elizabeth A. Yohe Editor, and Business Unit Leader/Partner “A closed claim is always the best claim”
Welcome to the Q3 2026 Issue of In the Know: Workers’ Compensation Edition This issue looks and feels a little different than the ones before it. Often, a workplace injury does not stay inside one legal box. You will find pieces on retaliation and discrimination exposure that grows out of a comp claim, how an OSHA investigation can ripple into the case that follows it, what happens when a small employer skips workers’ comp altogether, equipment failures that create comp and products claims at the same time, successor employer liability in M&A, and the exposure unique to medical professionals. When accidents turn into claims, the clients who come out ahead are the ones whose counsel can do more than recognize the overlap. They can walk down the hall and get the answers your case calls for. We put this together because that kind of access is a big part of what makes our representation different and useful, not just technically sound. I hope you find it as practical as we intended it to be.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Yohe
TABLE OF
CONTENTS WHAT YOUR COMP FILE DOESN’T TELL YOUR EMPLOYMENT LAWYER . . . . . . . . 5-6 THE OTHER CASES HIDING INSIDE AN OSHA INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9 THE COVERAGE GAP NOBODY PLANS FOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11 WHEN WORKPLACE EQUIPMENT FAILS, MULTIPLE CLAIMS MAY FOLLOW. . . . . 12-13 WHAT YOU INHERIT WHEN YOU BUY THE COMPANY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15 HEALING THEMSELVES: UNIQUE WC EXPOSURE FOR MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-17 LIST OF CEUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-27 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-29 FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-31
4 | IN THE
NOW
What Your Comp File Doesn’t Tell Your Employment Lawyer
EPLI carrier is underwriting a separate risk entirely and frequently does not know a comp claim exists until a demand letter arrives referencing it. Two carriers, two claim files, one employee, and neither side reviewing the whole picture: •
Retaliation under state workers compensation statutes and under Title VII or the ADA
•
Failure to accommodate under the ADA when light duty is offered but not functional
A workers’ compensation claim and an employment claim run on separate legal tracks, but employers who treat them as unrelated are the ones who end up defending both. When an adverse action follows a comp filing closely enough in time, that timing alone can become the plaintiff’s evidence of retaliation, regardless of the employer’s actual reasoning, and the resulting exposure often lands outside what the comp carrier was ever tracking.
•
FMLA interference when leave tied to the injury overlaps with attendance discipline
•
Wrongful termination claims built entirely on the timing between the claim and the termination, not the underlying facts
Workers’ compensation and employment law are handled by different people, different carriers, and different files inside most companies. That separation works fine until a single incident triggers both systems at once, and then the gap between them becomes the plaintiff’s argument.
Light Duty on Paper is Not Light Duty
By David Harvey
KK Takeaway:
Where the Two Systems Stop Talking to Each Other The comp carrier is underwriting medical causation and benefit exposure. It has no obligation to flag whether a return-to-work decision creates exposure under the ADA, and in most cases, it is not looking. The
Is your termination timeline defensible on its own, or only defensible because nobody checked the calendar first? That question gets asked in a deposition, not before one, unless somebody asks it earlier.
An offer of modified work that is functionally impossible given the employee’s actual restrictions is not an accommodation. It is what I call a paper accommodation, and paper accommodations do not survive contact with a job description and a treating physician’s note in front of a trier of fact. If the modified role was never reviewed against the actual restrictions in the medical file, that gap belongs to the employer, not the employee. Indeed, workers’ compensation “light duty” should not be offered until the Employer has determined whether a reasonable IN THE
NOW | 5
accommodation (work modification) would enable the injured employee to perform their original job. It is only AFTER it is determined the employee cannot perform the essential functions of their position (with or without accommodation) that other “light duty” assignments should be considered.
•
Retaliation Claims Run on Proximity, Not Merit
Before You Close the File
An adverse action close in time to a comp filing gets read as retaliatory whether or not it actually was. That is how the doctrine works, not a matter of fairness, and it means legitimate personnel decisions need to be defensible before the fact, not explained after it. •
Document performance issues as they occur, independent of any injury timeline.
•
Route any adverse action touching an employee with an open comp claim through employment counsel before it is finalized, not after.
•
Build an actual handoff between the comp adjuster and HR so both sides are working from the same file.
•
Give supervisors one rule: flag, do not decide, whenever a personnel action touches an injured worker.
•
If keeping the employee on staff through recovery, put a real communication plan in place so the employee understands the process and does not fill that silence with a retaliation narrative of their own making.
6 | IN THE
NOW
Employment decisions based on gross or intentional misconduct can be done immediately. However, if there is another reason for the adverse action, prudent employers should consider creating some distance between the injury date and adverse employment action.
A comp claim and an employment dispute arising from the same incident usually trace back to one underlying exposure, not two unrelated matters that happen to sit with different teams. Employers who close that gap are in a materially better position than the ones who find out about it from a demand letter. I work with employers on exactly this kind of exposure, building the documentation and decision process that holds up when a comp claim and an employment claim arrive from the same set of facts. I work seamlessly with our workers’ compensation attorneys to ensure our clients get the best representation on both sides of a claim.
The Other Cases Hiding Inside an OSHA Investigation By Gary L. Brown
KK Takeaway: When a comp claim is denied or accepted, a serious jobsite injury that triggers an OSHA investigation can create additional risk exposure for some and can be a resource for others.
A construction site rarely has one employer on it. There is a general contractor, one or more subcontractors, and often a labor company supplying the injured worker directly. OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy sorts responsibility into specific categories: the creating employer who caused the hazard, the exposing employer whose worker was put at risk, the controlling employer with authority over the site, and the correcting employer responsible for fixing known hazards. More than one company can be cited under more than one category for the same incident. For Employers – When You May Be Protected and When You May Not Be
IN THE
NOW | 7
You may be asking, isn’t there immunity from civil lawsuits for employers when there is workers’ compensation coverage? Generally, yes, workers’ compensation provides contractors who sublet any part of the work to a subcontractor with a shield from other claims and limits injured workers to workers’ compensation as their exclusive remedy. Due to the direct contractual relationship, as long as workers’ compensation insurance was secured, then the immunity applies up and down the contractual chain, and applies to statutory employers as well, which is also known as “vertical immunity.” The employer’s immunity in the vertical chain is not absolute and overcoming that immunity is possible. It requires something that is knowing and intentional. Just because something is careless or because the accident is serious is not enough. It requires that the employer actively and deliberately created or allowed a dangerous condition or knew with virtual certainty that injury/death would result from such condition. What if you are not part of that direct contractual chain and the injured worker of either the general contractor or another subcontractor tries to sue your subcontracting company – do you still have immunity? Possibly. The law says that different independent subcontractors working on the same job site and who were hired by the same general contractor are immune through “horizontal immunity” if workers’ compensation insurance was secured and there was no “gross negligence”1 involved. 8 | IN THE
NOW
While the immunity attempts to shield all employers on a job site, that immunity doesn’t apply across all entities on a jobsite, though, meaning your company could be sued for a personal injury in civil court. Plus, an OSHA investigation can add fuel to claims of negligence. Specifically, owner-developers do not have immunity and protection from civil suits. Another possibility is if your subcontracting company signs a completely different agreement directly with the owner that is separate and apart from the one that the general contractor signed. A vendor servicing a job site, for example by delivering supplies, does not enjoy immunity either. And, lastly, independent inspectors/surveyors do not enjoy any immunity and may be directly sued in civil court. For adjusters, where the injured worker collects benefits, there may be subrogation rights at play, if the tortfeasor is not an employee of the statutory employer. For Adjusters – What Should You Expect from the OSHA File Adjusters who understand what that file will contain, and who is exposed by it, are in a far better position than the ones who find out during litigation. Underestimating what an OSHA file will mean for a case long after the citation is issued is a common issue. Since workers’ compensation is a no-fault system, an OSHA citation does not change whether the injury itself is compensable. What it does change is the record available if the claim is denied, and which companies on that jobsite carry exposure beyond the comp system entirely. It
can also change coverage decisions in those claims where details are scarce. When OSHA responds to a jobsite injury, the compliance officer interviews witnesses, takes photographs the scene, and documents the hazard and the grounds for any violation while the facts are still fresh. Once the investigation closes, basic case information, such as the company name, citation descriptions, and penalties, is publicly searchable. The full investigative file, including photos and witness statements, can be obtained through a FOIA request, subject to redactions for personal privacy, medical information, and confidential business information. It’s important to request that file as soon as possible, especially if you have only conditionally accepted the claim under 120 days. Getting a hold of that OSHA file may be a time-consuming process but can provide valuable information to make key decisions. If a claim gets denied on causation or compensability grounds, that file is often the first place claimant’s counsel looks, and it usually contains reports generated within days of the incident, not the reconstructed version that shows up later in a deposition, when memories can fade.
any of it hardened into a final report that a company cannot walk back. A company that shows up to the dispute only after the citation issues is defending a record it had no hand in shaping. A company present during the inspection can flag inaccuracies, preserve its own evidence, and may be able to influence how it gets categorized before that categorization becomes the basis for a lawsuit. On sites where an injury triggers both an OSHA response and a workers’ compensation claim, our Construction Law and OSHA Compliance team coordinates directly with our Workers’ Compensation attorneys as the investigation develops, rather than the two matters running on completely separate tracks the way they often do elsewhere. That means a denial evaluation on the comp side can be informed by what our OSHA team is seeing in real time on the jobsite. Kelley Kronenberg’s Construction Law and OSHA Compliance team represents contractors, subcontractors, and their carriers through OSHA investigations on active jobsites, including being present for inspections in real time, so the record reflects what actually occurred rather than what gets reconstructed afterward.
Why Presence at the Inspection Protects You We make a point of being present for OSHA inspections on active jobsites, and the value is never about the citation itself. It is about knowing in real time what the compliance officer is documenting and which company was being asked which questions, before IN THE
NOW | 9
The Coverage Gap Nobody Plans For By Aaron D. Neifeld
KK Takeaway: Florida does not require every employer to carry workers’ compensation coverage. Non-construction employers with three or fewer employees may lawfully elect not to secure it. Many make that election to save on premiums, and few understand what they are actually giving up. The workers’ compensation system guarantees a “quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to an injured worker” and “facilitate[s] the worker’s return to gainful reemployment at a reasonable cost to the employer.” Fla. Stat. § 440.015. This statutory scheme “is based on a mutual renunciation of common-law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike.” Id. Exclusive Remedy Is Conditioned, Not Automatic Florida’s workers’ compensation system operates as a trade. The employer accepts no-fault liability for workplace injuries, and in exchange, Florida Statute 440.11 shields the employer from a common law negligence suit. That shield is conditioned on securing compensation. It is not automatic, and it is not extended as a courtesy to employers who chose not to participate. The Florida Supreme Court has expressly stated that 10 | IN THE
NOW
“injured employees who fall within the scope of this provision are to be swiftly provided compensation and necessary medical benefits by the employer, irrespective of fault as a cause of the injury.” Bakerman v. The Bombay Co., 961 So. 2d 259, 261 (Fla. 2007). Under this modified no-fault system, employers in compliance with the Workers’ Compensation Act are immune from their employees’ common law negligence actions for damages arising from work-related injuries. Id. at 262; see also Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1). An employer that qualifies for the smallemployer exemption and declines coverage has not violated the law. It has also not secured the immunity the statute otherwise provides.1 In that case, if an employee is injured on the job, that employer is not defending a comp claim capped by statute. Instead, it is defending a negligence lawsuit in circuit court, with no cap on damages, and a jury deciding the number. The defenses available in that lawsuit depend on how the employer got there. An employer that was legally required to carry coverage and failed to do so loses the ordinary common law defenses available in a negligence action, including comparative negligence. A small employer that lawfully elects out is not automatically subject to that same penalty and generally retains standard negligence defenses, including comparative fault under Florida’s modified comparative negligence framework. That distinction gets misread often enough that it is worth confirming case by case, since the analysis turns on how the claim is pled and which theory of liability the plaintiff advances.
What the Employer Actually Loses Retained defenses do not offset what is lost. A negligence claim opens the door to pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and potential punitive damages, none of which exist under the comp system. A claim that would have resolved for a scheduled indemnity benefit under Chapter 440 instead proceeds as an uncapped tort claim. General liability coverage is not a reliable backstop here either. Most general liability policies were never underwritten with this exposure in mind and may exclude or sharply limit coverage for employee injury claims. The premium savings from declining coverage are calculable at the time the decision is made. The exposure is not. Until a claim is filed
and the number comes back is not something we know or can budget for. Employers operating below the coverage threshold should treat this as a liability decision, not a payroll line item, which means confirming what the general liability policy actually covers, understanding which defenses survive if a suit is filed, and pricing the real cost of an uncapped claim against the premium saved. I have defended enough of these claims to know which employers are prepared for that number and which are finding out about it for the first time in a deposition. The gap is closed before a claim is filed or it is not closed at all. We are always here to help you solve problems, but we’d rather help you prevent them. Early consultation with counsel is key.
IN THE
NOW | 11
When Workplace Equipment Fails, Multiple Claims May Follow By James S. Coons and David A. Gonzalez
When a piece of workplace equipment fails and injures the employee operating it, the resulting exposure rarely stays contained within the workers’ compensation system. Workers’ compensation’s exclusive remedy provisions bar an injured employee from 12 | IN THE
NOW
bringing a civil negligence claim against their employer, but those same provisions have no bearing on the manufacturer, distributor, or seller of the equipment that caused the injury. The result is a claim that proceeds on two tracks simultaneously, a no-fault comp claim against the employer and a fault-based products liability claim against every entity in the equipment’s chain of distribution, each governed by different standards, different defenses, and different exposure. The Exclusive Remedy Bar Does Not Reach the Manufacturer An employer that provides a properly maintained, unmodified piece of equipment and complies with applicable safety regulations is ordinarily insulated from civil suit by its own employee through the exclusive
remedy doctrine. That insulation does not extend to the manufacturer of a defective machine, the distributor who supplied it, or the entity responsible for its maintenance if that entity is not the employer itself. An injured worker who receives comp benefits is not thereby barred from pursuing a design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn claim against the equipment manufacturer, and plaintiffs’ counsel increasingly treat the OSHA machine guarding standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.212, and its state-law analogs as a baseline for both regulatory citation exposure and a defect or negligence per se theory against manufacturers whose products fail to meet or exceed that standard. Subrogation Complicates, but Does Not Eliminate, the Employer’s Interest Most states afford the workers’ compensation carrier a statutory subrogation right, allowing recovery of benefits paid from any third-party settlement or judgment the injured employee obtains against the equipment manufacturer. That right gives the employer and its carrier a direct financial stake in the products claim even though the employer is not a named defendant, and it means early communication between workers’ compensation counsel and products liability counsel, where possible, is not a courtesy but a practical necessity. A carrier that is unaware of a viable third-party claim forfeits recovery it is otherwise entitled to pursue. Evidence Preservation Determines the Outcome of Both Claims Unlike many products liability contexts, an equipment failure claim typically arises on the employer’s premises, where the employer,
not the plaintiff or the manufacturer, has first custody of the failed equipment. A machine repaired, discarded, or returned to service before inspection creates a spoliation problem that can prejudice the manufacturer’s defense, the employer’s subrogation interest, and the employee’s own claim alike. Manufacturers defending these claims will look closely at whether the equipment was modified after sale, whether required guarding was removed or bypassed, and whether the employer’s own maintenance practices departed from the manufacturer’s specifications, each a potential misuse or comparative fault defense that depends entirely on the physical evidence still being available to examine. Coordinated Counsel Protects Every Interest Involved An equipment failure claim implicates workers’ compensation exposure, products liability exposure, and subrogation recovery at the same time, and treating those as three unrelated matters handled by three separate sets of counsel routinely costs someone in the process, whether that is a carrier that loses its subrogation recovery, an employer that fails to flag a modification defense, or a manufacturer that receives notice of a claim only after the equipment has already been scrapped. Kelley Kronenberg’s Products Liability and Workers’ Compensation practice groups coordinate directly on equipment failure matters, from initial evidence preservation through resolution of both the comp claim and any third-party products action. For guidance on an equipment-related workplace injury, or any other product liability concern, contact our team. IN THE
NOW | 13
What You Inherit When You Buy the Company By Marissa X. Kaliman
When buyers evaluate a target company’s workforce risk, most of the attention goes to headcount, payroll, and severance obligations. What will it cost to keep these people, and what will it cost to let them go. Those are the right questions. They are not the only ones. Workers’ compensation exposure rarely shows up on the list, and it should. A target’s experience modification (X-mod) factor and open claims history do not reset at closing. They follow the workforce, and in an asset purchase, buyers often assume they follow the seller instead. Where the X-Mod Actually Goes An X-mod factor compares a company’s past accident costs with the expected average costs for similar companies in the industry. It is built over years of claims history and takes years to bring back down. In a stock purchase, the buyer takes the entity as it stands, X-mod included, no question about it. An asset purchase is where the assumption gets buyers into trouble. Several states treat continuity of operations and workforce as enough to carry the seller’s experience rating forward regardless of how the deal was papered. A buyer who structured the
14 | IN THE
NOW
purchase specifically to leave the entity, and its history, behind can still end up wearing that history on the next renewal. The Open Claims Problem Here is a common scenario. A target company shows a clean balance sheet and a workers compensation program that looks unremarkable. A handful of open claims, nothing that raised a flag in the data room. What the reserve numbers do not show is which of those claims are still moving, a permanent injury still being evaluated, an appeal still working through the system, a claim reserved at a fraction of what it will ultimately cost. Reserves are estimates. They are not ceilings. A buyer who priced the deal against the reserve number, not the claim’s real trajectory, is the one absorbing the difference after close. This is a deal value question, not an HR administration question. If the purchase price assumes a workers’ compensation program that costs what the file says it costs today, and the file is wrong, that gap belongs in the negotiation, not in next year’s renewal. Diligence That Goes Further Than the Financials Financial diligence pulls the numbers everyone expects. Workers’ compensation diligence requires a different pull entirely: the X-mod history for the past three to five years, the full open claims list with status, projected outcome, current reserves, and clarity on whether the buyer’s post-close plans continue the same operations and workforce closely enough to trigger successor liability in the first place. None of that lives in a standard financial
statement. All of it determines whether the number on the purchase price actually reflects what the buyer is taking on.
enough to carry the seller’s claims history forward under state successor liability rules?
A few questions worth asking before any workforce-intensive deal closes:
4. Has someone who reads a workers’ compensation claims file the way a comp attorney does actually review this file, or has it only been summarized for the corporate diligence team?
1. What does the X-mod history look like for the past three to five years, and is it trending up or down? 2. How many open claims exist, and do the reserves reflect where those claims actually stand, or where they stood when they were last reviewed? 3. Will the buyer’s post-close structure continue the same operations closely
Getting answers to these questions before the deal closes is how buyers price what they are actually buying. The purchase agreement can allocate financial responsibility after the fact. It cannot undo an X-mod factor that already followed the workforce home. IN THE
NOW | 15
Healing Themselves: Unique WC Exposure for Medical Professionals By Elizabeth P. Perez and Brandon M. Thompson
In most businesses, a workplace injury usually starts and ends with the injury itself. A healthcare practice does not get that simplicity. The people most exposed to risk on your premises are often the ones treating everyone else’s injuries, and the exposure 16 | IN THE
NOW
they carry does not fit neatly into a standard workers’ compensation framework. A Needlestick Is a Claim Before Anyone Knows What It Is A sharps injury or bloodborne pathogen exposure triggers OSHA’s bloodborne pathogen standard the moment it happens, regardless of whether the employee ever tests positive for anything. That means postexposure testing, source patient evaluation, and a documented follow-up protocol can run six months or longer, all before anyone knows if there is an actual injury to compensate. A workers’ compensation claim filed on the date of exposure may sit open and largely uncontested for months while testing plays out, and questions about reopening a claim if a seroconversion shows up late are not questions a generic WC program is built to answer.
Workplace Violence Looks Different When the Assailant Is a Patient
What This Means for Your Claims File and Your Program
Assaults by patients, patients’ family members, or visitors are a documented risk in clinical settings, particularly in emergency departments and behavioral health units, and they raise questions a typical workplace violence claim does not. The assailant is rarely a coworker, so the usual internal disciplinary and prevention framework does not apply the same way. Security staffing levels, de-escalation training, and facility design choices become the relevant facts, and a claim can carry a negligent security theory alongside the workers’ compensation claim itself. Psychological injury claims, posttraumatic stress following a violent incident, get treated inconsistently across states, and some jurisdictions (like Florida) require a contemporaneous physical injury before a psychological claim is compensable at all.
A few concrete steps close the gaps above before they turn into disputed claims:
Who Actually Employs the Traveling Nurse Locum tenens physicians, travel nurses, and per diem clinical staff are common in healthcare in a way they are not in most industries, and the classification question that follows is not academic. A traveling nurse placed through a staffing agency may be the agency’s employee for workers’ compensation purposes even while working exclusively inside your facility, under your supervision, using your equipment. Joint employer questions can put both the agency and the practice in the position of carrying overlapping WC obligations, and the credentialing agreement and the staffing contract rarely answer the workers’ compensation question on their own.
•
Confirm your bloodborne pathogen protocol includes a defined process for reopening a claim in the event post-exposure testing turns up a late seroconversion, not just the initial incident report.
•
Check whether your state requires a contemporaneous physical injury for a psychological claim to be compensable, before a patient-assault claim tests that requirement for the first time.
•
Review your security staffing and de-escalation training against what a negligent security claim would actually examine, since that record matters independent of the WC claim itself.
•
Get a copy of the staffing agency’s workers’ compensation coverage terms for every locum tenens or traveling clinician and confirm in writing whether your facility or the agency carries the claim if an incident happens.
Adjusters evaluating a claim involving clinical staff should ask which of these three unique healthcare scenarios may apply since each one may run on a different timeline and may have different factors influencing compensability decisions than a typical workplace injury.
IN THE
NOW | 17
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Elizabeth A. Yohe Editor and Partner/Business Unit Leader Email Elizabeth A. Yohe
Elizabeth Yohe is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, where her practice is dedicated to the defense of workers’ compensation matters. She serves as a Team Lead on the firm’s Fraud Fighters Team. She brings extensive experience in all phases of workers’ compensation litigation from inception through trial, representing carriers, thirdparty administrators, and employers ranging from major corporations to small businesses. Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Elizabeth opened and led a new Florida office for a national firm handling workers’ compensation cases. She previously served as a Partner at another law firm, where she gained comprehensive experience in workers’ compensation litigation, effectively negotiating settlements to mitigate risk exposure and implementing proactive communication strategies with clients. Her unique background also includes serving as Associate General Counsel and Director of Enforcement for E-Commerce, where she prepared foundational policies and agreements based on intellectual property and antitrust law. Additionally, she served as an Intelligence Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and as an 18 | IN THE
NOW
Investigator for the United States Department of Labor, where she researched and analyzed complex criminal, civil, and regulatory matters. Elizabeth earned her bachelor’s degree from DePaul University. She received her Juris Doctor from Tulane Law School. Elizabeth has received numerous awards recognizing her superior service, including multiple commendations from FBI personnel, a letter of commendation from the Assistant Director of the FBI Directorate of Intelligence, and a National Award from the Secretary of Labor. She was nominated by judges to participate in the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims’ extended education program, recognizing her professionalism, community commitment, and potential to contribute to and lead the practice of workers’ compensation law. Her diverse background in federal law enforcement, intellectual property, and workers’ compensation litigation provides her with a comprehensive understanding of complex legal matters and investigative techniques that enhance her approach to workers’ compensation defense.
David S. Harvey Partner/Business Unit Leader Tampa, FL Email David S. Harvey
David Harvey is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing his practice on labor and employment law. Since 2001, he has been Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by The Florida Bar. David’s practice is dedicated to representing employers in various employment and labor-related matters, including litigation, counseling, HR risk management, day-to-day advice, training, and policy development. He represents employers in state and federal courts across the United States and has advocated for them before key employmentrelated agencies such as the EEOC, DOL, NLRB, and FCHR.
With over 30 years of employment and litigation experience, David is a seasoned attorney adept at managing and resolving complex litigation and compliance issues. He has extensive experience crafting fair and legally compliant employment strategies, union avoidance tactics, and improving working conditions for both large Fortune-rated companies and small businesses across the United States. David has successfully negotiated settlements in numerous HR disputes, ranging from a few hundred dollars to $30 million. David holds a Bachelor’s degree in Accounting from The University of Akron and a Juris Doctor from the University of Florida Law School.
IN THE
NOW | 19
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS Gary L. Brown Chair, Construction Law Division Fort Lauderdale, FL | Orlando, FL | Miami, FL | Naples | West Palm Beach, FL Email Gary L. Brown
Gary Brown is a Partner and Chair of Kelley Kronenberg’s Construction Law Division. His practice focuses on complex commercial and general business litigation, as well as OSHA compliance. He is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Construction Law. Gary is also a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator. In his practice, Gary assists businesses with complex and routine construction-related matters, working closely with business owners, developers, general contractors, construction managers, and major subcontractors to identify and resolve project issues early on. He also represents municipalities and other local governments, as well as contractors, on public works projects, including the development of procurement documents, construction agreements, and design agreements. Gary’s public works experience also includes prosecuting and defending bid protests. Gary is an excellent source of guidance for his clients on transactional matters, furnishing them with both legal and business strategies that are tailormade to strategically advance their objectives. His expertise extends to the preparation, negotiation, and enforcement of contracts, covering a broad
20 | IN THE
NOW
spectrum of legal disputes, including: • Change Order Disputes • Construction Defect Claims • Construction Lien Claims • Delay, Inefficiency, and Acceleration Claims • Design Defect Claims • Insurance Claims • Payment and Performance Bonds Gary’s practice also includes counseling clients in regulatory compliance with the standards and regulations enforced by the Department of Labor and OSHA. As part of his OSHA practice, Gary assists clients in establishing compliant safety programs; guides employers during OSHA inspections; and defends employers in OSHA enforcement actions. Placing emphasis on client satisfaction, Gary establishes highly engaged relationships with his clients. He provides both on- and off-site counsel and daily guidance to clients on both small and large-scale projects, aiming to resolve disputes before crises occur. Through proactive problemavoidance measures, Gary helps his clients to maintain workflows, facilitating timely compliance with contractual and other requirements while minimizing risks.
Marissa Kaliman Partner Fort Lauderdale, FL Email Marissa Kaliman
Marissa Kaliman is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing her practice on business and corporate transactions, with an emphasis on regulatory compliance. She brings over sixteen years of legal and finance experience helping companies develop and expand their businesses through hands-on, business-oriented solutions. Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Marissa served as General Counsel and Vice President of Compliance for a highly regulated finance company, where she launched the legal department, established corporate governance guidelines, and led multiple state examinations. She previously worked as Associate General Counsel for one of the largest independent car dealers in the country, where she served as lead counsel on financing, acquisitions, real estate transactions, and compliance matters. Her experience also includes working as an associate at a boutique firm specializing in commercial and real estate matters for global companies, and as an associate at a national law firm handling regulatory compliance and litigation for major financial services institutions. She has also
worked in corporate investigations, representing executives in government investigations and as an analyst managing commercial mortgage-backed securities loans. Marissa earned her Bachelor of Arts in International Relations and History & Policy with a minor in French, graduating with Honors from Carnegie Mellon University, where she served as President of the Spanish & Latin Student Association. She received her Juris Doctor from American University Washington College of Law, where she served on the Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law and completed internships with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and United States Bankruptcy Court. Marissa serves as a Board Member of the National Automobile Finance Association and as a Mentor in the Florida Bar Counsel to Counsel Mentoring Program. She is fluent in Spanish and conversational in French.
IN THE
NOW | 21
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS Elizabeth P. Perez Partner/Business Unit Leader Fort Lauderdale, FL Email Elizabeth P. Perez
Elizabeth Perez is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg with a practice dedicated to health law and a member of the firm’s Business Legal Team. She brings over twenty-five years of comprehensive legal experience representing health care providers in regulatory compliance, commercial litigation, and criminal defense matters. Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Elizabeth founded and managed her own boutique law firm specializing in health law and commercial litigation. Her experience includes practicing at some of South Florida’s most prestigious law firms, where she represented health care providers in license investigations and disciplinary actions before various professional boards, handled Medicare and Medicaid provider terminations and appeals, and advised clients on the ever-changing federal and state healthcare laws. She has also served as a Partner at a regional law firm and as an Associate at a large international firm, where she handled complex commercial litigation, health care regulatory compliance, and white-collar criminal defense. Elizabeth began her career as an Assistant Public Defender in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, where
22 | IN THE
NOW
she represented indigent clients in all aspects of criminal defense and brought more than fifty trials to verdict. Elizabeth is recognized as an AV Preeminent® attorney, which is the highest peer rating standard. This is given to attorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise, communication skills, and ethical standards by their peers. Also, she has consistently received the South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyer” in Health Law recognition since 2015 to the present. She graduated from Florida State University with a Bachelor of Arts in Communication Studies and a minor in English Literature, where she served as President of Lambda Pi Eta Communications Honor Society. Elizabeth earned her Juris Doctor from The Florida State University College of Law, where she received the Florida MPLE Scholarship, the Torchbearer Leadership Award, and served as VicePresident of the Spanish American Law Student Association. Elizabeth is fluent in Spanish.
Brandon M. Thompson Attorney Fort Lauderdale, FL Email Brandon M. Thompson
Brandon Thompson is an attorney at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing his practice on health law litigation. He brings comprehensive experience in healthcare regulatory compliance, insurance appeals, and health services administration. Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Brandon worked as an associate attorney appealing wrongfully denied and delayed insurance claims through insurance carriers’ internal appeals processes, utilizing federal regulations and state statutes to resolve claims and analyzing payer policies and managed care contracts to settle disputes. His experience includes serving as a legal extern for a major healthcare system’s compliance services, where he researched statutory and regulatory requirements for drafting policies on information blocking and provider-based rules, and as a legal extern for legal services conducting research on
clinical policy, contracts, licensure, compliance, and employment law. He has also worked as a legal intern drafting motions for summary judgment and conducting research on discovery matters. His healthcare background includes working as a service representative managing Medicare enrollment and benefits determination, as a patient access representative handling insurance verification and account management, and as a laboratory management intern implementing equipment to reduce adverse events. Brandon earned his Bachelor of Science in Psychology with a minor in Asian Studies from the University of Florida. He received his Master of Science in Health Services Administration from the University of Central Florida and his Juris Doctor cum laude from the University of Florida Levin College of Law.
IN THE
NOW | 23
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS David Gonzalez Partner/Business Unit Leader New York, NY | Short Hills, NJ Email David Gonzalez
David Gonzalez is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing his practice on the defense of third-party insurance and general liability matters, with particular emphasis on products liability and complex commercial litigation. He has extensive experience defending commercial lawsuits and tort actions, including products liability claims, construction accidents, premises liability, automobile negligence, and multi-party commercial disputes in both state and federal courts.
judicial decision-making and courtroom procedures. His experience also includes serving as Senior Legal Clerk to the Senior Vice President and General Counsel of a major national bank and as a Judicial Extern to the Honorable Jose L. Linares (ret.) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Prior to his legal career, David held various management positions in account management and business services, developing strong client relationship and business development skills.
Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, David served as Partner and Of Counsel at a law firm, where he practiced for over nine years handling complex litigation matters. He began his legal career as a Judicial Law Clerk for the Honorable Michael A. Toto in the New Jersey Superior Court Middlesex Visinage, where he gained valuable insight into
David earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Economics, and Latin American Studies from the University of Pennsylvania. He received his Juris Doctor from Rutgers Law School.
24 | IN THE
NOW
David is proficient in Spanish.
James S. Coons Partner New York, NY | Short Hills, NJ Email James S. Coons
James Coons is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing his practice on the defense of general liability and third-party insurance matters, with emphasis on products liability litigation and complex commercial litigation. He brings over twenty years of experience defending commercial lawsuits and tort actions, including personal injury, products liability, premises liability, construction defect, construction accident, wrongful death, mass toxic torts, and consumer fraud and warranty actions. Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, James served as a partner at a New York law firm and previously as a partner at another firm for over seventeen years. He has represented numerous domestic and international companies, including product manufacturers, distributors, retailers, insurers, franchisors, healthcare companies, real estate
owners, and construction contractors in state and federal courts across New Jersey and New York. His experience includes representing corporate plaintiffs in high-stakes commercial matters, including multi-million-dollar contract disputes, construction disputes, commercial tenancy actions, and franchise disputes. James also maintains a regulatory compliance and advice practice, conducting investigations and counseling domestic and foreign companies regarding compliance with applicable state and federal law and regulations in areas such as import duties, consumer safety, and hazard communications. James earned his Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick. He received his Juris Doctor from Boston University School of Law.
IN THE
NOW | 25
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS Aaron D. Neifeld Partner/Business Unit Leader West Palm Beach, FL Email Aaron D. Neifeld
Aaron Neifeld is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, where he concentrates on matters related to all aspects of general liability and third-party insurance defense. Before joining the firm, Aaron worked as lead trial counsel at a local law firm, where he handled various personal injury and wrongful death matters in state and federal courts across the State of Florida. He has aggressively handled complex insurance defense litigation on behalf of businesses and individuals since 2016. Aaron earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from The University of Central Florida, where he majored in Legal Studies and was a Burnett Honors College graduate.
26 | IN THE
NOW
Aaron went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from Nova Southeastern University-Shepard Broad College of Law. While at Nova Southeastern University-Shepard Broad College of Law, Aaron gained experience by working as a Certified Legal Intern for the Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office in the Felony Trial Division. Aaron also was a member of the Nova Trial Association, where he was a national finalist in several mock trial competitions. Apart from his work at Kelley Kronenberg, Aaron is a member of the Palm Beach County Bar Association, the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar, and a Board Member of the PBCBA’s Lawyers for Literacy Committee, wherein he coordinates reading events at public schools across Palm Beach County. In his spare time, he enjoys presenting to high school students about careers in the legal field.
LIST OF
CEUs
Our attorneys are always happy to share their knowledge with your team. Whether you’re looking for one of the courses below or a program customized to your organization’s needs, we’d be glad to help plan and present a webinar or seminar. Reach out to marketing@kklaw.com to get started.
Adjuster Depositions: Mastering the Art of Testifying “Arising Out Of” and in the “Course and Scope” of Employment – How These Similar Legal Concepts are Totally Separate and Distinct Denials for Pre-Existing Conditions DWC Forms and Key Documents: The Descriptions, Details, and Directions Establishing Compensability and the Exceptions Thereto Florida Workers’ Compensation 101 Florida Workers’ Compensation Deadlines and Time Frames Law and Ethics Update Major Contributing Cause in Florida Workers’ Compensation Misrepresentation Defenses: The Practical Considerations The Challenges of the One Time Change Statute Valuing Claims- Categories, Components, and Calculations WC Coverage Through PEOS and Staffing Agencies IN THE
NOW | 27
AWARDS AND
ACCOLADES FIRM AWARDS Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:
2021 – 2026 Top Workplaces USA Energage
2020 – 2026 Top Workplaces Sun Sentinel
2019 – 2026 Best Law Firms U.S. News - Best Lawyers
2024 Top Performer Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2012 – 2025 NLJ 500 The National Law Journal
2016 – 2026 Largest Law Firms Tampa Bay Business Journal
2025 Women Scorecard Law.com
2020 – 2022, 2024 Compass Award Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2012 – 2026 Top Law Firms South Florida Business Journal
2022 – 2023 Best Places To Work New Orleans CityBusiness
2016 – 2026 Largest Central Florida Law Firms Orlando Business Journal
2021 Diversity Team Award Profiles in Diversity Journal
2017 – 2024 400 Largest Law Firms Law360
28 | IN THE
NOW
WC ATTORNEY AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent® Rating
Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch
Karen M. Gilmartin Amy B. Siegel
Amy B. Siegel (2021-2022) Elizabeth A. Yohe (2027)
Executive Women of the Palm Beaches Foundation Women in Leadership
South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers” Amy B. Siegel (2014-2021) Karen M. Gilmartin (2011, 2014-2021)
Amy B. Siegel (2021)
WOMEN IN THE L AW Best Lawyers “Women in the Law” Amy B. Siegel (2021)
Girl Scouts of Southeast Florida, Emerald Award, “Risk Taker” Amy B. Siegel (2021)
FWCI
Florida Workers’ Compensation Institute Florida Workers’ Compensation Hall of Fame
Florida Bar Board Certification in Workers Compensation
Karen M. Gilmartin (2014)
Don W. Allen (1998-2026)
Super Lawyers - Rising Stars Jany Holland (2021-2026) Amy B. Siegel (2013-2016)
National Trial Lawyers 40 Under 40 Jany Holland (2023)
Best Lawyers Justin T. Nestor (2015-2027) Carol J. Sangster (2025-2027) Don W. Allen (2027)
IN THE
NOW | 29
with over
540
Employees
more than
the convenience of
Attorneys
Locations
240
20
Founded in 1980, Kelley Kronenberg is an award winning, multi-practice national law firm with 540 employees, 240 attorneys, and 20 locations throughout Florida and the United States. We are privileged to represent large public and private companies, small businesses, and individuals nationwide. With more than 40 practice areas, and growth on the horizon, we offer a comprehensive catalog of legal services to protect your legal interests in business and at home. Our firm is progressive and technologically advanced, while remaining true to our customer service heritage: integrity, ingenuity, and sincerity. Ever mindful of our history, but intensely committed to our future, we offer our clients a small firm feel with large firm resources.
OUR
LOCATIONS FORT LAUDERDALE
NEW YORK CITY
ORLANDO
CHICAGO
TAMPA
JACKSONVILLE
DAYTONA
MERRILLVILLE
10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 704 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697
128 Orange Avenue, Unit 306 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Phone: (754) 888-5437
111 Broadway, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (845) 306-7867
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 216-8828
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 100 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (904) 549-7700
233 E. 84th Drive, Suite 200 Merrillville, IN 46410 Phone: (317) 731-6243
MIAMI
WEST PALM BEACH
NEW ORLEANS
INDIANAPOLIS
TALLAHASSEE
NAPLES
DALLAS
HOUSTON
220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 410 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 503-0850
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2400 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: (504) 208-9055
6267 Old Water Oak Road, Suite 250 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301
5956 Sherry Lane, 20th Floor Dallas, TX 75225 Phone: (983) 999-4640
1501 Belvedere Road, Suite 500-504 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: (561) 684-5956
10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Suite 218 Indianapolis, IN 46256 Phone: (317) 731-6243
3080 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 322 Naples, FL 34112 Phone: (239) 990-6490
14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 450 Sugar Land, TX 77478 Phone: (983) 999-4640
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY BUFFALO
50 Fountain Plaza Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 647-7254
SHORT HILLS
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (862) 421-3155
ALBANY
401 New Karner Road. Suite 301 Albany, NY 12205 Phone: (845) 306-7867
ATLANTA
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972
IN THE
NOW | 31
WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381