Kelley Kronenberg - In the Know – Workers’ Compensation August 2021 Edition

IN THE

AUGUST 2021

NOW

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION EDITION IN THIS ISSUE: • Supplemental Benefits • Compensability • Attorney’s Fees • Medical Noncompliance • One-Time Change Physician • Employer-Employee Relationship

EDITOR’S LETTER

WELCOME Joshua T. Higgins, Esq. Editor, and Business Unit Leader/Partner

Learn continually—there’s always “one more thing” to learn!

–Steve Jobs

my legal opinion on non-litigated claims or even on claims that are litigated and currently have a defense attorney assigned. I always welcome and appreciate these calls, as frequently the questions asked of me involve interesting and uncommon scenarios or intricacies of Florida’s

And so, here we are, the first “KK Takeaways: A

workers’ compensation law. Of my daily routine

Monthly Workers’ Compensation Newsletter.”

and these client overtures, this monthly

What prompted the creation of this newsletter?

newsletter was born.

Well, the reality is that like Steve Jobs said,

Each month’s newsletter will contain up to 10

“there’s always ‘one more thing’ to learn.”

Starting out my legal career as a prosecutor in Broward County, I was a voracious reader of case law and found that a knowledge of the law and its intricacies and nuances oftentimes could be the difference in a case. When I entered the realm of private practice and started my career in an entirely different field—workers’ compensation defense—I found that the same approach of being a constant reader of case law and being current on the law and rulings allowed me to have an edge over my opponent. I have continued this practice to this day, reading case law updates every morning as I have my coffee (but only after feeding my office beta fish—he comes first).

Several times a week I field calls from existing clients—be it employers or adjusters—asking

cases, with “KK Takeaways” of what should be learned from the case. These cases usually will be current cases, from the past month or two, but will also contain the occasional “older” case that involves an intricacy or nuance of the law that recently had come up on one of my cases, one of my fellow partners’ cases, or from one of my “advice” calls from a client.

As Steve Jobs said, it’s important to learn continually, and that’s the purpose and ultimate goal of this monthly newsletter. So, reader, delve into the KK Takeaways that follow, as “there’s always ‘one more thing’ to learn!”

TABLE OF

CONTENTS SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Renfroe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 568 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)

COMPENSABILITY Irsula v. Sears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 OJCC Case No. 20-004301ERA (FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. May 5, 2021) Bouayad v. Value Car Rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9 OJCC Case No. 19-020798NPP (FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. May 5, 2021) Elie v. Memorial Hospital/PGCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12 OJCC Case No. 19-016397MJR (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. May 10, 2021) Phillips v. American Addiction Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OJCC Case No. 19-025694WWA (Fl.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. April 10, 2020)

12-14

Stein v. Talbots, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-16 OJCC Case No. 19-012515TWS (FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. April 16, 2021)

ATTORNEY’S FEES Patel v. Johnson & Johnson Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-18 OJCC Case No. 18-009235RJH (FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. April 23, 2021)

MEDICAL NONCOMPLIANCE Davis v. Marion County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

667 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)

18-19

ONE-TIME CHANGE PHYSICIAN Prieto v. DHL Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20 OJCC Case No. 20-020810MGK (FL.Off.Judge Comp. Cl. April 26, 2021)

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP Russell v. Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Restaurants, Inc., Landry’s Restaurant’s Inc . . . . . . . . . 20-21 OJCC Case No. 20-022741NPP (FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. May 4, 2021)

CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23 HELPING YOU STAY AHEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-25 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-27 FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-29

4 | IN THE

NOW

Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Renfroe 568 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)

KK TAKEAWAY: The date upon which supplemental benefits are due depends on when the Claimant reaches MMI/PTD. If the Claimant reaches MMI/PTD within the same calendar year as the industrial accident, then supplemental benefits are due on January 1 of the year following the date of MMI/PTD. If the Claimant did not reach MMI/PTD within the same calendar year as the industrial accident, then supplemental benefits are due when the claimant reaches MMI/PTD.

BACKGROUND: In Renfroe, the Employer/Carrier appealed an order awarding bad faith attorney’s fees to the Claimant. The Claimant cross appealed a portion of the order that had awarded supplemental benefits to the Claimant, but had not required payment of the supplemental benefits until January 1 of the year following the date that the Claimant had attained MMI and PTD status.

The Claimant asked the Court to not follow its previous decision in Winter Garden Citrus v.

Parrish, because that decision had incorrectly applied the holding in Martino v. Nevins Fruit Company. The Employer/Carrier, on the other hand, argued that the rule of stare decisis required the Court to follow its previous ruling in Winter Garden Citrus.

In examining the relevant statute (i.e., § 440.15(1)(e)(1)), the Court felt it was IN THE

NOW | 5

important to factually distinguish Winter Garden Citrus and Martino. In Martino, the Claimant had reached MMI and PTD

should commence on January 1 of the following year.

in the same year as the industrial accident.

Supplemental benefits began at the point the Claimant was at PTD, “but amounted to

Irsula v. Sears

nothing because the calendar year had not

OJCC Case No. 20-004301ERA

elapsed since the injury.” However, in Winter

(FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. May 5, 2021)

Garden Citrus, the claimant’s injury had

KK TAKEAWAY:

“occurred in the calendar year prior to the year in which MMI was reached.”

This distinction matters due to the prescribed formula in the statute, which states, “In case of permanent total disability…the injured employee shall receive additional weekly compensation benefits equal to 5 percent of his weekly compensation rate…multiplied by the number of calendar years since the date of injury.” Thus, the applicable formula is as follows: “.05 x compensation rate x number of calendar years since injury = supplement.”

Where the number of calendar years since the injury is zero (i.e., because the claimant had attained MMI/PTD in the same year as the industrial accident), the result will be zero, as anything multiplied by zero equals zero.

In contrast, when the date of MMI/PTD is in any calendar year following the year in which the injury occurred, the formula will yield a positive result.

Accordingly, the First DCA found that the payment of supplemental benefits should begin when the claimant reaches MMI/PTD “when the date of injury is in some calendar year prior to the calendar year in which MMI/ PTD is attained.” But when MMI/PTD is attained in the same year as the industrial accident, payment of supplemental benefits 6 | IN THE

NOW

Although it is important for the employer/ carrier to abide by the deadline of the 120day rule when determining compensability, the 120-day rule does not apply when the employer/carrier is contesting the cause for the current need for treatment.

BACKGROUND: On May 5, 2021, JCC Almeyda of the Miami District issued this opinion, determining whether the Employer/Carrier had properly

denied the Claimant’s requested treatment.

a claimant’s need for specific treatment

The Claimant had been injured when she

or benefits, and the industrial accident.”

tripped at work and fell flat on her face,

Thus, because the Employer/Carrier was not

injuring her chest, left knee, and shoulder, and

denying compensability of the original injuries,

causing her to lose four teeth. The Claimant

but rather asserting that the current need

originally treated at MD Now from the date

for the Claimant’s recommended treatment

of the accident through December of 2018,

was not the industrial accident, JCC Almeyda

at which time she was discharged. However,

concluded that the 120-day rule did not apply

finding herself still in pain, the Claimant

in this case. Accordingly, the Employer/Carrier

returned to MD Now in June of 2020. At the

had correctly denied the Claimant’s request

June 2020 visit, the Claimant was prescribed

for therapy.

therapy for her knee and shoulder. However, the DWC-25 stated that “the etiology of the complaints is undetermined.”

The Employer/Carrier’s IME, Dr. Hommen, determined that the Claimant no longer needed treatment for her knee or shoulder as a result of the industrial accident. In contrast,

Bouayad v. Value Car Rental, LLC OJCC Case No. 19-020798NPP (FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. May 5, 2021)

the Claimant’s IME, Dr. Langone, found that

KK TAKEAWAY:

the need for treatment to both areas was still

While a random accident may not seem

related to the industrial accident and that

at first glance to be causally related to the

the Claimant might even need knee surgery.

claimant’s employment, the correct inquiry

Thus, an EMA, Dr. Rozencwaig, was appointed

in determining causation is whether the

due to the apparent conflict between the

claimant’s employment subjected them to

IMEs. Dr. Rozencwaig determined that the

a greater risk of such accident occurring in

Claimant’s condition was “one of the normal

comparison to the general public.

diseases of life, and not as a sequela of the accident,” as the right shoulder pain was due

BACKGROUND:

to degenerative changes.

On May 5, 2021, JCC Pitts of the Orlando

Accordingly, JCC Almeyda concluded that

District issued a Final Compensation Order

the only way the Claimant could prevail is

that addressed the question of whether a

by operation of the 120-day rule. In other

shooting incident arose from the Claimant’s

words, the Claimant would have to argue that

employment. By way of background, the

the Employer/Carrier had waived its right to

Claimant worked as the general manager of a

deny compensability of the original injuries.

rental car business that operated in a leased

However, JCC Almeyda explained that the

space inside of an airport hotel. The rental car

120-day rule still allows the Employer/

business also had a separate private office

Carrier to contest “the connection between

that was located next to the swimming pool of IN THE

NOW | 7

the hotel. At the end of each shift, the Claimant

the act of the employee tripping over her

would be required to visit the private office,

dog was not a risk that her employment had

carrying with him the final rental agreements

introduced. However, the First DCA also

and any cash.

made it clear that compensability may still

On the night of the accident, the Claimant had

occur where “the employment necessarily

stayed at work until shortly after midnight

expose[d] claimant to conditions that would

because he had been training new employees

substantially contribute to the risk of injury.”

that day. As usual, he exited the hotel lobby

JCC Pitts explained that to take the holding

and proceeded to walk down the walkway

in Valcourt (i.e., whether the accident was

towards the private office, when an assailant

something that the employment introduced)

emerged from a dimly lit area and shot the

to its logical conclusion would necessitate a

Claimant seven times at point blank range,

finding that any accident that could occur in

injuring the Claimant’s “left hand and fingers,

a non-work environment such as a “fall, motor

left leg, right arm and stomach,” and causing

vehicle accident, drowning, burn injur[y],”

the Claimant to sustain a cerebral vascular

etc. could not be found to be compensable,

stroke.

thereby leaving only a few unique instances in

At the final hearing, the sole issue for determination was whether the shooting had arisen from the Claimant’s employment, as it was undisputed that the shooting occurred during the course and scope of employment.

The Employer/Carrier argued, under Valcourt, a case in which a work-from-home employee had tripped over her own dog in her own kitchen while on her way to get a cup of coffee, that the Claimant had not met his burden in establishing that the shooting was a risk that was not present in his life outside of work.

Additionally, the Employer/Carrier, based on the testimony of their expert, Dr. Kennedy, argued that the hotel’s surroundings did not have any causal relationship to the shooting and that the shooting was most likely a targeted crime against the Claimant.

To address the Employer/Carrier’s argument, the JCC conducted analysis under Valcourt.

In Valcourt, the First DCA found that the accident was not compensable because 8 | IN THE

NOW

which an accident would be compensable.

Additionally, JCC Pitts found that the greater weight of the evidence did not establish a

motive for the shooting, which put to rest any argument that the shooter knew the Claimant or was a hired contract killer. JCC Pitts also noted that, by virtue of the fact that the leasing office was on the grounds of hotel property rather than at the airport itself, the employees were more exposed to the general public. Further, because the business had an additional private office where it kept its leasing agreements, the

Elie v. Memorial Hospital/PGCS OJCC Case No. 19-016397MJR (May 10, 2021 FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl.)

KK TAKEAWAY: Consistency in the Claimant’s description of an accident is a vital factor in determining the events of a particular accident and whether it will be deemed compensable under §440.09.

employees were required to exit the secured

A physician’s understanding of a mechanism

hotel lobby and walk through the walkway –

of injury, and consistency between diagnostic

an area surrounded by vegetation and a dimly

results and medical findings, are vital to a JCCs

lit smoker’s area – alone late at night. Finally,

determination of whether there is objective

based on the testimony of security experts

medical evidence of an injury as required by

and criminologists, JCC Pitts noted that the

§440.09.

crime rate in the area of the hotel was fifteen (15) times higher than the crime rate in the

BACKGROUND:

Claimant’s home and that murders between

On May 10, 2021, Judge Michael Ring of the

the hours of midnight and 3:59 a.m. occur at a much higher rate as well.

Fort Lauderdale District released a Final Compensation Order in the Elie v. Memorial

For all of the foregoing reasons, JCC Pitts

Hospital/PGCS claim, on the issues of (i)

concluded that “the claimant’s employment

compensability of the June 12, 2019 accident.

substantially contributed to the risk of

By way of background, the Claimant was

injury and to risks which the claimant would

employed as a laboratory assistant for

not normally be exposed to during his

Memorial Hospital Miramar. On June 12, 2019,

nonemployment life.” Thus, JCC Pitts held

while working in this capacity, the Claimant

that the Claimant had established “that his

was involved in an argument with a co-worker,

injuries arose out of his employment due to

and alleged that she was injured when the co-

the nature of the environment of the job,”

worker slapped the bicep of her right arm.

which had subjected him “to greater danger to a personal assault than others in general.”

Following

the

incident,

the

Claimant’s

supervisors were notified of the altercation and investigated the situation on the same day, speaking to each party separately. However, the version of events provided by the Claimant and the co-workers differed significantly. The Claimant reported that she was slapped by the co-worker in the forearm/lower hand area IN THE

NOW | 9

during their argument, while the co-worker claimed that her and the Claimant began “gesticulating” with their arms and the fingers of the co-worker’s left hand slightly touched the fingers of the Claimant’s right hand. This suggested the contact was unintentional.

It is important to note that the Claimant did not report being hurt, did not show physical signs of injury, and did not request medical treatment during this conversation.

Following the discussion with her supervisors, the Claimant called 911 to report the situation.

An officer completed an Incident Report, which contained the Claimant’s description of the incident. The Claimant reported to the officer that the co-worker pushed her hand away, which was inconsistent with how it was described to her supervisors. Furthermore, the Incident Report contained an area to address whether an injury had occurred. This area was left blank.

The for

Human Memorial

Resource

Representative

Healthcare

Systems

also

investigated the altercation and spoke with both the Claimant and the co-worker on June 13, 2019. The Claimant described and even demonstrated her version of the accident by slapping her own forearm. In contrast, the co-worker advised that there was no more than touching of their hands. Similar to her conversation with her supervisors, the Claimant did not indicate she was injured and did not request medical treatment.

In addition to the above, the Claimant had also completed a written statement executed within a few days after the incident. In the statement, the Claimant indicated that the coworker slapped her during their conversation.

10 | IN THE

NOW

Without first requesting medical care from

based on objective relevant medical findings

the employer, the Claimant presented to

and that the accidental compensable injury

Memorial Pembroke Pines Urgent Care on

must be the major contributing cause of any

June 14, 2019 with reports of arm and shoulder

resulting injuries.”

pain from the alleged slap to the forearm.

Judge Ring found the co-worker’s testimony to

Rather than contacting the employer and requesting further treatment, the Claimant returned to the same Urgent Care the next day with complaints of stress and anxiety due to issues with a co-worker, with no mention of physical complaints. She was instructed to follow-up with her PCP and did so on June 18, 2019 with continued complaints of anxiety.

Again, there was no mention of any physical complaints and no history was provided as to the cause of her anxiety.

be credible based on her “candor, demeanor, and consistency” of her description of the accident. She gave the same description of the incident to the supervisors, the Human Resources Representative, and at the Final Hearing. The Claimant, on the other hand, provided four (4) different versions of the accident. She told her supervisors, the Human Resources Representative, and the physicians at the Memorial Urgent Care that her forearm was slapped, while she described to Officer

The first time the E/C became aware that

Vasquez that her hand was pushed away.

the Claimant was alleging an injury was

Additionally, she advised Dr. Fleigelman that

upon receipt of the first Petition for Benefits seeking medical treatment. A 120-day letter was issued advising the Claimant that her claim was under investigation.

she was slapped on the bicep, while she told IME Dr. Michael Langone that her co-worker pulled and twisted her right arm. Based upon same, Judge Ring rejected the Claimant’s

During the investigation, the E/C authorized

testimony as to what happened on the date

Dr. Robert Fleigelman who initially evaluated

in question due to the “inconsistency of

the Claimant on July 16, 2019. The Claimant

the Claimant’s statements throughout th[e]

reported right arm pain and anxious feeling

matter.” Rather, Judge Ring accepted the

after the June 12, 2019 incident. A physical

co-worker’s description of the incident that

examination was performed, which revealed

it involved a “mere brushing of fingers of her

no objective evidence and the Claimant was

left hand with the Claimant’s right hand.”

diagnosed with a contusion of the right arm.

Judge

Based upon this opinion, a DWC-12 was issued on July 31, 2019 denying the entire case.

Ring

next

considered

whether

there was objective evidence of an injury, considering the medical opinions of Dr.

The Claimant bears the burden of proving

Fleigelman, Claimant IME Dr. Langone, and

compensability of her claim. Florida Statute

E/C IME Dr. Robert Baylis. Dr. Fleigelman

§440.09

prove

opined that there was no objective medical

the injury, its occupational cause, and any

evidence of an injury based upon his July 16,

resulting manifestations or disability to a

2019 examination. Dr. Langone believed the

reasonable degree of medical certainty,

Claimant’s description of the events that

“requires

the

Claimant

IN THE

NOW | 11

FIRST DEPARTMENT her right arm was grabbed and twisted, and he reviewed X-rays taken of the Claimant’s right

arm,

which

Notwithstanding

were

same,

unremarkable.

Dr.

Langone

Phillips v. American Addiction Centers OJCC Case No. 19-025694WWA

diagnosed the Claimant with impingement

(April 10, 2020 Fl.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl.)

syndrome, tendonitis, and adhesive capsulitis

KK TAKEAWAY:

of the right shoulder, recommending physical therapy and medication for same.

Dr. Baylis testified that the mechanism of injury was different than what was told to Dr. Langone. The Claimant informed Dr. Baylis that her injury consisted of a slap on the upper

The

acceptance

of

compensability

and

provision of benefits under another state’s workers’ compensation laws counts as “the initial provision of compensation or benefits” under the 120-day rule (F.S. §440.20(4)).

portion of the right arm. Dr. Baylis performed

The defense of estoppel for an employer/

a physical examination, reviewed a right

carrier’s failure to provide a claimant with

shoulder X-ray and a right shoulder MRI, and

knowledge of the statute of limitations applies

opined that there was no objective medical

to claims that can be brought under Florida’s

evidence that Claimant had suffered an injury

jurisdiction, but originate under the workers’

on June 12, 2019. He indicated that even if the

compensation laws of another state.

Claimant had sustained a contusion, it had been resolved by the time of her visit.

BACKGROUND:

Judge Ring ultimately accepted the opinions

On April 10, 2020, Judge Wilbur Anderson

of Dr. Baylis over that of Dr. Langone for the

entered a Final Compensation Order in the

following reasoning: (i) Dr. Baylis’ testimony

Phillips v. American Addiction Centers claim,

was logical and consistent with the results of

which discussed the claimant’s request for

the diagnostic results, while Dr. Langone’s was

follow-up psychiatric care under Florida’s

not, (ii) Dr. Baylis reviewed all of the medical

workers’ compensation statute.

records of the Claimant, while Dr. Langone

By way of background, the Claimant was a

did not, and (iii) Dr. Langone’s findings were based upon facts that Judge Ring did not accept (Claimant’s right arm was grabbed and twisted).

resident of Tennessee, who worked as an intervention specialist for American Addiction Centers. His job required him to travel throughout the United States conducting

Accordingly, Judge Ring found no objective

interventions to persuade individuals to seek

evidence of an injury suffered in the June

treatment for drug and alcohol addictions.

12, 2019 incident. The alleged June 12, 2019

On the date of the accident, while working in

incident was found to be non-compensable

Florida, the subject of an intervention became

as the Claimant did not sustain an injury in the

enraged, grabbed a large butcher knife, and

course and scope of employment that met

held it to the Claimant’s throat and threatened

the requirements of Florida Statute §440.09.

to kill him. The Claimant and his mother were

12 | IN THE

NOW

held hostage for approximately four (4) hours

Florida Statute §440.093 and the statute of

before they were able to escape. Within a

limitations defense.

few days, the Claimant began experiencing

The

symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and reported the incident to his Employer/Carrier. The Carrier accepted the claim as compensable under Tennessee’s workers’ compensation law and authorized treatment with a psychiatrist in Nashville, Tennessee. The Claimant treated with the psychiatrist for some time, until he voluntarily stopped attending appointments in 2017 after missing too many days of work.

Without contacting the Carrier to resume

Employer/Carrier

argued

that

the

Claimant’s mental injury is not compensable because it was not accompanied by a physical injury requiring medical treatment as required

by Florida Statute §440.093. The Claimant responded

with

affirmative

defenses,

arguing that the Employer/Carrier voluntarily accepted the mental injury as compensable in 2017 under the Tennessee claim, and thus, the Employer/Carrier waived the right to contest compensability under the 120-day rule.

treatment under the claim in Tennessee, or

In his opinion, Judge Wilbur Anderson

filing a claim for benefits in Tennessee, the

reasoned that if the Employer/Carrier had

Claimant filed a Petition for Benefits in Florida

voluntarily accepted compensability of the

on October 9, 2019, seeking the follow-up

Claimant’s mental injury and provided Florida

psychiatric care. On December 26, 2019,

workers’ compensation benefits in 2017,

the carrier filed a DWC-12 Notice of Denial

the right to challenge compensability in this

denying the claim for Florida benefits, citing

instance would undoubtably be waived. The IN THE

NOW | 13

court cited the opinion in Solsaa v. Werner Enterprises, which concluded that workers’ compensation

benefits

erroneously

paid

under another workers’ compensation statute

Stein v. Talbots, Inc OJCC Case. No. 19-012515TWS, 2021 WL 1575099 (FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. April 16, 2021)

starts the running of the 120-day period.

KK TAKEAWAY:

Based on Solsaa, Judge Anderson concluded

If an Employer/Carrier wishes to deny

that the Employer/Carrier waived the right

compensability of a condition, it is important

to deny compensability of the mental injury

to do so at the first indication in the medical

because they did not deny compensability

records, or within 120 days of same, even if it

within 120 days of the initial provision of

does not appear that the authorized treating

benefits in 2017.

physician has affirmatively diagnosed the

The Employer/Carrier also asserted that the

Claimant with the condition.

Claimant’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he had not received

BACKGROUND:

authorized medical treatment since August of

On April 16, 2021, JCC Thomas Sculco of the

2017. The Claimant argued that the Employer/

Orlando District released a Final Compensation

Carrier was estopped from raising the defense

Order, which determined the correct date on

because the Claimant did not have knowledge

which the 120-day ‘pay and investigate’ period

of the statute of limitations. It was undisputed

had actually begun.

that the Employer/Carrier did not provide

In this claim, the Claimant suffered a compensable

the Claimant with notice of the limitations

injury to her right knee on November 28, 2017.

period until an informational brochure was

On March 1, 2018, the Claimant’s authorized

provided to the Claimant on December 20,

orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Locker, performed

2019. Thus, the Claimant had the burden of

surgery on her right knee. While providing follow-

proving estoppel by preponderance of the

up care on April 10, 2018, Dr. Locker reported

evidence. The Claimant testified that he did

that the Claimant was still experiencing knee

not have actual knowledge of the statute of

pain and that he hoped it was not “a component

limitations, and had he known, he would have

of regional pain syndrome.” On both July 23, 2018

continued to treat in compliance with same.

and August 14, 2018, Dr. Locker hypothesized that

Judge Anderson concluded that this was

the Claimant might have regional pain syndrome

preponderant proof of estoppel.

(or, “CRPS”) and that it was still related to her

Accordingly,

the

Employer/Carrier

was

ordered to authorize follow-up psychiatric care for the Claimant’s PTSD.

workers’ compensation injury. Finally, on July 16, 2019, Dr. Locker concluded that there was a component of regional pain syndrome associated with the Claimant’s right knee pain, but because he did not understand why her knee pain was radiating to other body parts, he referred her to a neurologist, Dr. Bruce

14 | IN THE

NOW

Hoffen, who ultimately could not determine

had effectively denied compensability of the

the etiology of the Claimant’s complaints

CRPS condition. Alternatively, the Employer/

either.

Carrier argued that the 120-day period had

The Claimant returned to Dr. Locker on June

not even begun to run because the Employer/

12, 2020, at which time he stated, “I really

Carrier had only authorized an “evaluation”

do feel she has regional pain syndrome

with Dr. Antony, not treatment.

from the workers’ compensation injury.” He

In response to the first argument, JCC Sculco

recommended the Claimant be evaluated by

noted that the Employer/Carrier’s position

Dr. Antony, a pain management specialist,

was in contrast to well-established Florida

so the Claimant filed a Petition for Benefits

law that “an E/C’s failure to respond to section

requesting

formally

440.192 petition does not interrupt the 120-

diagnosed the Claimant with CRPS and

day period and does not avoid the section

recommended certain treatments, which the

440.20(4) provision.” As to the Employer/

Claimant requested in her August 28, 2020

Carrier’s second argument, JCC Sculco also

Petition for Benefits.

found no merit, as evaluations have long been

Although the Employer/Carrier never formally

held to be a form of medical treatment under

denied compensability of the Claimant’s

Florida’s workers’ compensation statute.

CRPS, the Employer/Carrier argued that by

Accordingly, the Claimant’s evaluation with

failing to provide the treatments Dr. Antony

Dr. Antony, which had been authorized by the

had recommended, the Employer/Carrier

Employer/Carrier, “could potentially begin the

same.

Dr.

Antony

IN THE

NOW | 15

running of the 120-day period.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, JCC Sculco found that it was not actually Dr. Antony’s report that began tolling the 120-day period, but rather, it was Dr. Locker’s medical reports from July 23, 2018 and August 14, 2018, in which he had indicated he thought the Claimant may have had CRPS and that this condition was still related to her workers’ compensation injury. JCC Sculco found that this was an unequivocal diagnosis of CRPS, and that the Employer/Carrier did not deny compensability of the Claimant’s CRPS within 120 days of August 14, 2018. Accordingly, JCC Sculco held that the Employer/Carrier had waived the right to deny compensability of the Claimant’s condition.

BACKGROUND: This order, issued by JCC Humphries of the Jacksonville District on April 23, 2021, addressed attorney fee entitlement with respect to three separate petitions for benefits, as well as the appropriate hourly rate, which are each discussed in turn below.

I. April 17, 2018 Petition for Benefits The first petition for benefits, filed April 17, 2018, requested payment and compensability of an existing medical bill, along with attorney’s fees and costs. The Employer/Carrier timely responded on April 17, 2018, stating “There is no dispute regarding compensability of the claimed medical billing. E/SA agrees to payment. We have requested correct WC medical billing in order that the claimed medical bill can be paid.” Thereafter, on July

Patel v. Johnson & Johnson Vision OJCC Case No. 18-009235RJH (FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. April 23, 2021)

KK TAKEAWAY:

19, 2018, counsel for the Employer/Carrier wrote to Claimant’s counsel, stating “the E/C will re-request the bill on the PFB on proper form and fee schedule and it will be paid.”

While the Claimant conceded that the OJCC

In a request for medical authorization, to

does not have jurisdiction once an employer/

prevent attorney’s fees from attaching, the

carrier

employer/carrier must, at the very least,

medical bills, the Claimant argues that the

confirm that a physician has been authorized

Employer/Carrier in the instant claim did not

and provide the name of the physician.

actually accept responsibility for the medical

Although providing the date and time of the

bills until the July 19, 2018 communication.

appointment in the response might be ideal,

JCC Humphries disagreed with the Claimant,

scheduling the appointment is not required

finding that the Employer/Carrier had accepted

in the initial thirty days following the filing of

compensability in the April 17, 2018 response

the petition for benefits under Florida law. By

to the petition for benefits. Further, quoting

the same token, accepting compensability of

Sansone v. Crum, JCC Humphries noted

medical bills in a response is sufficient to avoid

that “When it comes to medical benefits, a

attachment of attorney’s fees, regardless of

claimant’s successful prosecution ends when

when the bills are actually paid.

the carrier or employer accepts responsibility,

16 | IN THE

NOW

has

accepted

responsibility

for

regardless of when the carrier or employer

October 3, 2019 but reserved on the issue of

actually pays the medical providers.”

attorney’s fees. JCC Humphries noted that by

Accordingly, fee entitlement was not found

filing the voluntary dismissal, the Claimant

with respect to this petition for benefits.

II. July 12, 2019 Petition for Benefits

had made it clear that the requested benefits had been provided. In arguing for entitlement to attorney’s fees, the Claimant contended

The second petition for benefits at issue,

that because the requested benefit – i.e., the

filed July 12, 2019, requested “provision of

scheduling of the doctors’ appointments –

medical care within the same specialty as

had been secured more than thirty (30) days

her authorized positions, in closer proximity

after the petition had been filed, attorney’s

to Claimant’s new address in Jacksonville,

fees had attached. However, JCC Humphries

Florida.” The Employer/Carrier timely filed a

rejected this argument, pointing out that

response on July 23, 2019, stating that the

established case law holds that the medical

Claimant was scheduled with a Dr. Howard

benefit is provided “when the employer, carrier

Weiss, and attorney’s fees were denied.

or servicing agent communicates the name

Subsequently, on August 5, 2019, another

of the physician who is authorized to treat

response was timely filed, stating that a

or evaluate to the claimant or the claimant’s

primary care physician had been approved

attorney,” and that the “actual scheduling of

and that the Claimant had been scheduled

an appointment is not required as a matter of

with Dr. Brandon Kambach of Jacksonville

law.”

Orthopedic Association. On September 26, 2019, the Employer/Carrier issued a letter to the Claimant indicating that the appointments

Accordingly, fee entitlement was not found for this petition as well.

with Dr. Kambach and Dr. Weiss were

III. March 20, 2020 Petition for Benefits

scheduled for October 14, 2019 and October

The third petition for benefits, filed March 20,

24, 2019, respectively.

The Claimant filed a voluntary dismissal on

2020, requested (i) “continued orthopedic and pain management care as the claimant cannot IN THE

NOW | 17

set an appointment without carrier approval,”

further resistance to the benefits sought”, the

and (ii) attorney’s fees and costs. The

Claimant was entitled to attorney’s fees.

Employer/Carrier timely responded on April

IV. Hourly Rate

13, 2020, stating “Evaluation by Orthopedic and/or Pain Mgt is duly and hereby authorized and will be scheduled promptly & accordingly with Dr. Steven Weiss MD c/o SE Orthopedic Inst.” Later that day, the Employer/Carrier emailed and faxed counsel for the Claimant, advising that an appointment with Dr. Stephen Esser had been scheduled for April 16, 2020.

On April 27, 2020, counsel for the Claimant contacted the Employer/Carrier to request an appointment with Dr. Kambach, an orthopedic physician. Counsel for the Employer/Carrier responded, stating that they would work on it and he would be back in touch. On May 11, 2020, counsel for the Claimant had to inquire

In

determining an appropriate hourly rate,

Claimant’s counsel suggested $350-$425 per hour, but after reviewing orders from the Jacksonville District, conceded that $300 may be appropriate. Claimant’s counsel contended that because his practice was in Miami, Florida, a higher hourly rate may have been warranted. While JCC Humphries acknowledged that hourly rates in South Florida are higher than throughout the rest of the state, he aptly pointed out that the instant claim was adjudicated in Jacksonville, not South Florida. Thus, an appropriate hourly rate was $275 per hour.

again about the orthopedic appointment.

On May 13, 2020, counsel for the Employer/ Carrier informed counsel for the Claimant that an appointment had been scheduled, and the adjuster advised the Claimant of same.

Davis v. Marion County 667 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)

During his deposition, the adjuster testified that he had authorized an appointment with Dr.

KK TAKEAWAY:

Esser, a pain management physician, because

While an employer/carrier may temporarily

that is what had been requested. However,

suspend

it was discovered that the request for the

claimant’s

orthopedic physician from this particular

medical noncompliance doctrine does not

petition for benefits had been overlooked and

allow the employer/carrier to suspend medical

was not actually confirmed until the April 27,

benefits as well.

2020 communication between the respective

indemnity medical

benefits

due

noncompliance,

to

a the

attorneys.

BACKGROUND:

Accordingly, because the Employer/Carrier

TIn Davis, the Claimant appealed a workers’

had not made it clear until April 27, 2020

compensation order wherein the JCC had

(more than thirty (30) days after the petition

denied the Claimant both medical and

for benefits had been filed) that “there was no

indemnity benefits. In the hearing below, the

18 | IN THE

NOW

unable to work if she had sought prompt medical attention. Accordingly, the First DCA reversed the portion of the JCC’s order related to the forfeiture of medical benefits.

Prieto v. DHL Express OJCC Case No. 20-020810MGK (FL.Off.Judge Comp. Cl. April 26, 2021)

KK TAKEAWAY: When choosing a one-time change physician, JCC found that the Claimant had left a pain

it is important to ensure that the one-

management

medical

time change physician is within the same

advice and without reasonable excuse, prior

specialty as the original physician. However,

to completing the evaluation and necessary

a physician’s additional focus in a particular

program,

“against

testing.” In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Lobnitz – a case in which the Court affirmed a decision by the JCC to suspend indemnity due to a Claimant’s failure to seek treatment for a six-month period – the JCC in Davis decided to suspend both the Claimant’s medical and indemnity benefits due to her failure to complete the pain management program.

sub-specialty—by either the original physician or the one-time change—will not necessarily serve as a disqualifying factor based on the argument that the physicians are not in the “same” specialty.

BACKGROUND: On April 26, 2021, JCC Margret Kerr of the Miami District released a Final Merits Order in the Prieto v. DHL Express claim, which

However, on appeal, the First DCA explained

examined

that, while the holding in Lobnitz does allow

slightly different areas of focus were “in the

for the suspension of temporary indemnity

same specialty” for purposes of a one-time

benefits for a claimant’s failure to mitigate

change request.

the employer/carrier’s liability, the holding

By way of background, the Claimant had been

does not stand for the proposition that an

treating with Dr. Liam McCarthy, who identifies

employer/carrier

as

may

suspend

medical

an

whether

two

interventional

physicians

pain

with

management

benefits as well. Rather, the Court in Lobnitz

specialist and holds board certifications in (i)

suspended temporary indemnity for the

physical medicine and rehabilitation, and (ii)

period of the claimant’s noncompliance

pain management. The Claimant requested

because the claimant would not have been

a one-time change physician away from Dr. IN THE

NOW | 19

doctor do not entirely align and Dr. McCarthy identifies himself as an interventional pain management specialist, while Dr. Vega does not.

Notwithstanding

the

Employer/Carrier’s

argument, Judge Kerr found that each physician specialized in pain management, and that interventional pain management is merely a sub-specialty of pain management, rather than a separate specialty in itself. Thus, the Claimant prevailed in his choice of onetime change physician, Dr. Vega.

McCarthy. When the Employer/Carrier did not respond to the request in a timely manner, time physician pursuant to § 440.13(2)(f), Fla.

Russell v.

Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.

Stat. The Claimant chose Dr. Andres Vega, a

Restaurants, Inc., Landry’s Restaurant’s Inc.

physician who focuses his practice on pain

OJCC Case No. 20-022741NPP

management and is board certified in (i)

(FL.Off.Judge Comp.Cl. May 4, 2021)

the Claimant was entitled to choose his one-

anesthesiology, (ii) pain management, and (iii) disability analysis.

The Employer/Carrier argued under LaFleur and Myers that the one-time change physician must be in the exact same specialty as the original physician. In Myers, the First DCA held that a physician who practices in a similar specialty does not qualify as a one-time change physician, “because—quite simply—

KK TAKEAWAY: A worker who has entered into an “Independent Contractor Agreement” may not necessarily be an independent contractor if the nature of the worker’s relationship with the employer is more akin to that of an employee, based on criteria established in Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Statute.

’same’ is different than ‘similar.’”

BACKGROUND:

Although the order does not provide additional

On May 4, 2021, JCC Neal Pitts of the Orlando

detail with respect to the Employer/Carrier’s

District issued a Final Compensation Order,

argument, one can assume that the Employer/

addressing the question of whether the

Carrier opposed the choice of Dr. Vega on

Claimant was an employee or an independent

the basis that his background was, in some

contractor for purposes of Florida’s workers’

ways, dissimilar to that of Dr. McCarthy, as the

compensation statute.

various board certifications of each respective

The instant claim ensued when the Claimant

20 | IN THE

NOW

was injured in a motor vehicle accident while making a delivery for Landry’s to Walt Disney World. After being furloughed from her job as a server due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Claimant had inquired about a delivery job with Landry’s where the Claimant would be required to deliver meals from certain Landry’s restaurants to Walt Disney World for Landry’s contract with the NBA in connection with the NBA/Disney COVID-19 ‘bubble.’ The Claimant was informed that she would be an independent contractor, that she would be required to deliver the food with her own vehicle and at her own expense, that she would be required to wear a uniform of khaki pants, solid-colored polo shirts, and closedtoe, non-slip shoes, and that she would be paid $10.00 per delivery. As a pre-condition of employment, the Claimant was required to sign a non-negotiable “Independent Contractor Agreement.” The Claimant attended a twoday orientation/training and thereafter began delivering meals for Landry’s.

However, shortly after the Claimant began driving for Landry’s, Landry’s “unilaterally and without discussion or notice changed the compensation terms of the agreement by instituting a new compensation package consisting

of

both

hourly

pay

and

a

commission for deliveries.” After the change in

compensation

terms,

the

Claimant’s

new compensation structure provided the Claimant with $35 for a half day consisting of three (3) hours, $70 for a full day consisting of six (6) hours, $10 for each single order

10:00 p.m. for the following week.

At the hearing, the Employer/Carrier argued that the “Independent Contractor Agreement” created a non-rebuttable presumption that the Claimant was an independent contractor and was therefore not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. However, citing to Cantor v. Cochran, the JCC noted that the Florida Supreme Court has held that “the party’s agreement is not determinative of employment status,” and that a worker’s status as either an employee or independent contractor is determined by all the circumstances surrounding their relationship with the employer.

Thus, JCC Pitts turned to the statute, which requires the Employer/Carrier “to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that the claimant was an independent contractor” by showing the existence of at least four of the six criteria outlined in the statute.

delivery, and $25 for each delivery of a team order. Landry’s also made the Claimant’s weekly schedule, requiring the Claimant to send her availability no later than Sundays at IN THE

NOW | 21

MEET THE

CONTRIBUTORS of Kelley Kronenberg designated as the host for the meetings in South Florida, and he is the legal advisor

Joshua T. Higgins, Esq.

to the Safety Alliance for Excellence (SAFE) since its

Editor and Business Unit Leader/Partner

inception. He assists his clients daily in all aspects of

Email Joshua T. Higgins

claims handling, both prior to and after litigation has begun, and has handled complex matters through trial on numerous occasions, with a high percentage of success.

Joshua Higgins is a Business Unit Leader and Partner at Kelley Kronenberg where he focuses his practice on Workers’ Compensation defense. He has previous experience handling employment law matters, OSHA, Police Professional Litigation, Correctional Healthcare, and Civil Rights claims.

The team that Joshua leads comprises of nine (9) people (attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants), which collectively have over 90 years’ experience handling workers’ compensation matters in Florida.

Joshua handles workers’ compensation claims for a wide array of industries, for a clientele that ranges from multi-billion companies to small employers.

One of the primary industries Joshua handles workers’ compensation claims for is the construction industry. He represents general contractors and subcontractors of all sizes, and is enmeshed in the construction industry of South Florida. He is an active member of the Construction Association of South Florida (CASF), where he has been on the

Joshua is a popular and frequent writer and presenter on various workers’ compensation issues, both in Florida and on a national level. For his success and reputation, he has been named a Florida Super Lawyers Rising star for 2020 and 2021 (bestowed on less than 2.5% of attorneys in Florida), was named a 2020 and 2021 Top Lawyer in workers’ compensation

by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated (one of only two defense attorneys on the list), and was named a 2022 Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch by U.S. News & World Report. Joshua is also rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, based upon peer reviews, which indicates that he has achieved the highest professional and ethical standards and is the highest rating a lawyer can receive.

Prior to joining the firm, Joshua worked as an Assistant State Attorney at the State Attorney’s Office, 17th Judicial Circuit, in both the felony trial unit and county court division. While there, Joshua tried more than 30 bench trials and 22 jury trials, with his

Young Leaders Committee for several years (and

last trial featured on local Fox news.

the firm is the legal advisor to), he is involved in the

During law school at Nova Southeastern University,

Associated General Contractors (AGC), for which he

Joshua served for two years as the Chairperson of

was instrumental in having the Fort Lauderdale office

Administration for the Moot Court Honor Society,

a Staff Member for the Inter-American Center for

Prior to entering law school, Joshua obtained his

Human Rights, and the Secretary for the National

undergraduate degree magna cum laude from the

Security and Law Society. He received a perfect

State University of New York at Buffalo, where he

score from the Chief Justice in the first round of the

was selected for induction into the Phi Beta Kappa

ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition, and

Society, received English Departmental Honors, and

placed in the top 8 out of more than 125 students in

was listed in Who’s Who Among American College

the Feinrider Moot Court Competition. Further, Joshua

Students. Additionally, Joshua was chosen as a

was one of 40 law students selected nationwide as a

Renaissance Scholar, an award bestowed on less than

summer fellow for the Florida Bar Foundation, which

4% of graduates that year (only 82 students out of a

resulted in him working at Coast to Coast Legal Aid of

class size of more than 2500), for those exhibiting

South Florida doing foreclosure defense for indigent

scholarly excellence in at least two widely disparate

elderly citizens.

areas of study.

Kirstin Grice, Esq.

Brandon T. Haas, Esq.

Associate Attorney

Associate Attorney

Email Kirstin Grice

Email Brandon Haas

Kirstin Grice is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg

Brandon Haas is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg

where she assists in handling matters related to

where he assists in handling matters related to

Workers’ Compensation Defense.

Workers’ Compensation.

Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Kirstin worked

Brandon Haas is an Attorney in the firm’s Fort

as a Senior Associate for a healthcare valuation

Lauderdale office where he assists in handling

firm, where her specific focus was compensation

matters related to Workers’ Compensation.

valuation.

Prior to joining the firm, he gained experience in

Kirstin received her Bachelor of Science degree

Insurance Defense Litigation while working as a Law

in Business Administration from Florida State

Clerk for a boutique Fort Lauderdale firm.

University. She then went on to receive her Juris

Brandon received his Bachelor of Science degree

Doctor degree, cum laude, from Florida State

from the University of Central Florida and went on

University College of Law. While attending law school,

to earn his Juris Doctor degree, summa cum laude,

Kirstin was an articles editor on the Florida State

from Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad

University Law Review and a teaching assistant for a legal writing and research class. She also earned the Distinguished Pro Bono Service Award, was a Florida Bar Scholarship recipient, and was on the Dean’s List for 3 semesters.

College of Law where he regularly made the Dean’s List and was both a Junior Associate and Executive Editor for Nova Law Review. While in law school, he was a Legal Intern for the Broward County Environmental and Consumer Protection Division and served as a Teaching Assistant.

IN THE

NOW | 23

HELPING YOU

STAY AHEAD BLOGS Mental Health in the Workplace – Post Pandemic Panic By: Amy Siegel Oran Florida workers’ compensation law does not cover purely psychological trauma; the emotional condition must be brought […]

CLICK TO READ MORE

Movies Speak to Me in Legalese By: Amy Siegel Oran. We all have our favorite movies, a top-five list of films you’ve seen so many times you […]

CLICK TO READ MORE

20 Years of Wisdom in 5 Bullets: Tips for Law Graduates By: Amy Siegel Oran. On this day, 20 years ago, I was worrying about law school finals and the upcoming […]

CLICK TO READ MORE

6 Key Points to Defend, Manage, and Settle Catastrophic Claims

By Amy Siegel Oran I recently had the pleasure of presenting on the topic of defending, managing, and settling of […]

CLICK TO READ MORE

24 | IN THE

NOW

WEBINARS COVID-19 in 2021 Kelley Kronenberg Partners Adam Kemper and Joshua Higgins present COVID-19 in 2021 with Principal Partner/ Chief Financial Officer, Heath Eskalyo as the moderator.

The webinar, COVID-19 in 2021, provides updates on the latest applicable workplace guidelines and for practice.

CLICK TO WATCH

PUBLICATIONS Guest column: Florida’s minimum wage increase raises workers’ compensation cost Tampa Bay Business Journal Amy Siegel Oran CLICK TO READ MORE

Yes, employees required to get vaccinated for COVID-19 can file a workers’ compensation claim for vaccine adverse effects Verify Joshua Higgins CLICK TO READ MORE

What The Telecommuting Trend Could Mean for Florida Workers’ Comp Claims Insurance Journal Indira Marin CLICK TO READ MORE

Does Workers’ Comp Cover an Employee’s Reaction to a COVID-19 Vaccine?

SHRM Joshua Higgins CLICK TO READ MORE

Telecommuting Employees and the Potential for Workers’ Compensation Claims HR Florida Newswire Indira Marin CLICK TO READ MORE

IN THE

NOW | 25

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

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Best Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Named as a “Business of the Year” and “Top 100 Private Companies”

Best Multi-Practice Business Law Firm – USA

26 | IN THE

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

NOW

2021 “Diversity Team” winner

WC ATTORNEY AWARDS

Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating

Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch

Karen M. Gilmartin, Raymond L. Grant, Joshua T. Higgins, Steven L. Scharf, Amy Siegel Oran

Joshua T. Higgins Amy Siegel Oran

Florida Super Lawyers “Rising Stars”

South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers”

Joshua T. Higgins

Amy Siegel Oran Karen Gilmartin

Illinois Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” Julianna Walo Executive Women of the Palm Beaches Foundation Women in Leadership Amy Siegel Oran

Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer” Joshua T. Higgins

WOMEN IN THE LAW Best Lawyers “Women in the Law”

Girl Scouts of Southeast Florida, Emerald Award, “Risk Taker” Amy Siegel Oran

Amy Siegel Oran IN THE

NOW | 27

A Firm Built on Relationships KELLEY KRONENBERG IS A MULTI-PRACTICE BUSINESS LAW FIRM.

with over

400

Employees

more than

175 Attorneys

the convenience of

12

Locations

Founded in 1980, the firm is one of the fastest-growing law firms in Florida and amongst the largest in the U.S. The firm serves all types and sizes of public and private companies, including small businesses and individuals nationwide.

OUR

OFFICES CHICAGO

NEW YORK NEW JERSEY

ATLANTA JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA ORLANDO

15

WEST PALM BEACH TALLAHASSEE FORT LAUDERDALE

OFFICES

NEW ORLEANS

TAMPA MIAMI LAKES NAPLES

MIAMI

CHICAGO

DAYTONA

FORT LAUDERDALE

JACKSONVILLE

10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970

10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (954) 370-9970

MIAMI

MIAMI LAKES

15100 NW 67th Avenue, Suite 204 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: (305) 826-7260

NAPLES

1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 503-0850

NEW ORLEANS

ORLANDO

TALLAHASSEE

150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 216-8828

20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1207 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450

1112 Riverside Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32117 Phone: (754) 888-5437

6267 Old Water Road, Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301

1421 Pine Ridge Road, Unit 120 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: (954) 370-9970

TAMPA

1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697

201 St. Charles Ave, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (732) 547-7907

WEST PALM BEACH

1475 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 275 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 684-5956

BY APPOINTMENT ONLY ATLANTA

1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972

NEW JERSEY

51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (908) 403-8174

NEW YORK CITY

One Liberty Plaza 165 Broadway 23rd Floor, Suite 2374 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (800) 484-4381

IN THE

NOW | 29

WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381 C h i c a g o | D a y t o n a | F o r t L a u d e r d a l e | J a c k s o n v i l l e | M i a m i | M i a m i L a k e s N a p l e s | N e w O r l e a n s | O r l a n d o | Ta l l a h a s s e e | Ta m p a | W e s t P a l m B e a c h