Kelley Kronenberg - In the Know – Workers’ Compensation - March 2022

IN THE

MARCH 2022

NOW

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION EDITION

IN THIS ISSUE: • • • •

Statutory Employer General Release Major Contributing Cause One-Time Change

EDITOR’S LETTER

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

accept or deny a claim. While these cases do

It always seems impossible

not truly create “new law,” they do effectively

until it’s done.

remove and add arguments that are routinely made for and against the accepting of a claim

–Nelson Mandela

as compensable, and in so doing, they provide greater clarity as to the meaning of what a

Recently, the First District Court of Appeal has

compensable industrial accident is.

been busy issuing opinions that have sought

The First DCA will not stop there, as there are

to clarify commonly contested positions on

several other cases due up before the First DCA

workers’ compensation law. Twice in the past

on occupational causation, as well as another

few weeks the First DCA has issued opinions

case on the one-time change requirement of

on cases that involved arguments pertaining

the physician being in the exact same specialty

to the scope and meaning of the infamous

as the initial physician, that will further assist in

Valcourt-Williams

clarifying vague or uncertain areas of the law.

case

on

occupational

causation. These cases, which will be discussed

The takeaway is that it is crucial to stay

at length in the April newsletter, are of critical

apprised of the recent developments in the law,

importance in terms of fully understanding how

and hopefully these newsletters have, and will

to assess difficult questions about whether to

continue to be, of benefit on this going forward.

TABLE OF

CONTENTS STATUTORY EMPLOYER Martinez v. Vanguard Hammer Property Renovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 OJCC Case No. 21-008524RLY (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. January 3, 2022)

GENERAL RELEASE Crisp v. Areas USA, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10 OJCC Case No. 18-029317TAH (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. February 4, 2022)

MAJOR CONTRIBUTING CAUSE Pearson v. Paradise Ford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12 951 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)

ONE-TIME CHANGE Lynn v. American Airlines Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13-14

OJCC Case No. 21-018336JIJ (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. February 11, 2022)

COMPLIMENTARY CEU CREDITS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 CONTRIBUTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-17 HELPING YOU STAY AHEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21 FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23

4 | IN THE

NOW

Martinez v.

Vanguard Hammer Property OJCC Case No. 21-013870GJJ (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. January 24, 2022)

KK TAKEAWAY: A duty implied in law or a “quasi-contract” does not create a contractual obligation to form the basis for a statutory employment relationship.

KK TAKEAWAY: A claimant’s subjective belief can neither create an express or implied contract, nor a contractor/subcontractor relationship, between two (2) parties.

BACKGROUND: On January 24, 2022, JCC Johnsen issued a Final Compensation Order on the question of whether the Claimant was a direct or statutory employer of the Insured, Vanguard Hammer Property Renovations.

By way of background, the Claimant is from Honduras and had resided in the United States for fourteen (14) years doing stucco work. He is not a United States citizen and does not have a work permit, a Florida driver’s license, or an identification card. The Claimant had been doing work with a man named Cesar Augusto Sevilla for 2-3 years. Cesar was also from Honduras, and both he and the Claimant would socialize together prior to the work accident. The Claimant admitted he never heard of the Insured prior to the accident.

The Claimant testified at deposition that he was working for Cesar for three (3) months prior to the work accident. The Claimant IN THE

NOW | 5

brought his own tools to the job sites, but the

At Bruce’s deposition, he testified that his

materials were provided by Cesar. Cesar paid

company had a contract with the homeowner

the claimant $170.00 to $180.00 in cash,

of the Boca Raton property to replace the

earning on average $850.00 to $900.00 per

roof. The contract did not include any stucco

week, which was reported to the IRS. Post-

patchwork, and there was no contract for

accident, the Claimant no longer socialized

stucco work. Bruce called Cesar a couple of

with Cesar, but he did continue to work for

weeks before the work accident to request an

him.

estimate of the stucco repair, which was only

On the date of accident, the Claimant was told by Cesar that they were doing a job for Bruce Kanhai, the operations manager for the Insured. At the time, the Claimant was not aware that Cesar was supposed to perform an estimate for Bruce that day, which was to be done before any work had been performed. The Claimant was adamant that he was going to perform actual stucco work on the date of the accident and was not going to simply perform an estimate. With Cesar,

needed because it had been damaged during the replacement of the roof. There was no contract between the Insured and Cesar, and Bruce never received a proposal or bid from Cesar for the stucco repair. Bruce admitted that he did not expect Cesar or the Claimant to perform the work on the same day as the estimate, and that he did not know whether Cesar actually intended to perform the job that day. He also did not know that Cesar was going to the property on the date of accident.

the Claimant climbed up to the roof, and while

Bruce further testified that the Insured paid

up there, slipped on a wet piece of paper and

the Claimant approximately $3,000.00 by

fell off. He lost consciousness and woke up

check in accordance with a General Release.

in the hospital with injuries to his head, elbow,

This released the Insured, Bruce, and Cesar

and back.

from all potential claims arising under law.

Cesar testified at deposition that he had known Bruce and had been doing stucco

The Claimant claimed he was unaware of what he was signing and was misled by Cesar.

jobs for the Insured approximately three (3)

Furthermore,

times per year. He testified that the Insured

ultimately performed by Gilbert Lawnscaping

was replacing the roof of a residence located

Maintenance, who came out to the property

in Boca Raton, Florida. Bruce called Cesar

to provide an estimate before performing the

about 3-4 days prior to the work accident to

work.

request an estimate for the job. Cesar said

JCC Johnsen found, and the parties did

he was only there to do an estimate and not

not dispute, that the Claimant was a direct

to perform the job. He admitted that the

employee of Cesar and that Cesar did not

Claimant was riding with him for work, but

have workers’ compensation insurance on

again claimed they were only going to do an

the date of accident. Rather, the Claimant

estimate as he would not begin a job until he

asserted that he was a statutory employer

is given an estimate.

of the Insured, as Cesar had an implied

6 | IN THE

NOW

the

stucco

repair

was

contract with the Insured to repair the stucco

on such contract work shall be deemed

at the property in question. He argued that

employed in one and the same business

since Cesar did not have a valid workers’

or establishment, and the contractor shall

compensation policy, his injures were covered

be liable for, and shall secure, the payment

by the Insured’s policy as the statutory

of compensation to all such employees,

employer. The Insured argued that there was

except to employees of a subcontractor who

no express or implied contract between the

has secured such payment. Under Florida

Insured and Cesar to perform stucco or repair

Statute §440.10(1)(b), the sublet work must

work at the property on the date of accident,

be an obligation that the contractor has with

and that Cesar and the Claimant were only

a third party. The contractor must sublet an

there to provide an estimate of the stucco

obligation that is part of a contract, express

repair work that needed to be done.

or implied in fact, and not an obligation purely

Florida Statute §440.10(1)(b) provides in

imposed by statutory or common law

relevant part: In case a contractor sublets

Following a review of the contract between

any part or parts of his or her contract work

the Insured and the third-party homeowner,

to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all

JCC Johnsen found that the Insured and

of the employees of such contractor and

homeowner did not have any contract to

subcontractor or subcontractors engaged

perform stucco work or stucco repair, but IN THE

NOW | 7

instead contracted for a roof replacement.

The Insured subsequently performed some minor stucco repair because their roofing work damaged the stucco near the garage of the homeowner’s property. The Insured was not contractually obligated to repair the damaged stucco and that the Insured’s reparations during the roof replacement were a result of a duty implied in law or a “quasicontract” and therefore, cannot form, the basis for a statutory employment relationship.

JCC Johnsen further found that the insured had no written contract with Cesar to perform stucco work or stucco repair at the property in question. He also found that no implied contract existed between the Insured and Cesar for either Cesar or his employees to perform stucco work or stucco repair on the date of accident. Cesar and the Claimant were at the property in order to provide an estimate for stucco work. Bruce did not specify a date for Cesar to perform the estimate and did not authorize Cesar to perform any work. The Claimant’s subjective belief that he was on the property to perform stucco work neither created an express or implied contract, nor a contractor/subcontractor relationship between the Insured and Cesar. Additionally, JCC Johnsen found it persuasive that it was the Insured’s business practice to require a written estimate before authorizing work to be performed, as they did with Gilbert Lawnscaping subsequent to the work accident.

As for the general release signed by the claimant, JCC Johnsen found several reasons why the Claimant could have been asked to sign a release in exchange for payment.

8 | IN THE

NOW

He rejected the Claimant’s argument that the executing of the release was a part of a conspiracy theory to deny him workers’ compensation benefits or insulate the Insured from workers’ compensation liability. The general release did not specifically mention worker’s compensation and purported to release all causes of action.

Based upon the foregoing, JCC Johnsen ruled that the Claimant was neither a direct employee, nor a statutory employee of the Insured on the date of accident pursuant to Florida Statute §440.10(1)(b). As such, the Insured was not legally required to provide the Claimant with any workers’ compensation benefits and all claims were dismissed.

Crisp v. Areas USA, Inc OJCC Case No. 18-029317TAH (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. February 4, 2022)

KK TAKEAWAY: A Claimant’s execution of a general release in a third party action that effectively closes all workers’ compensation benefits is valid as long as the third party attorney had clear and unequivocal authority to execute the Release, despite not having any actual authority to settle the workers’ compensation case.

BACKGROUND: On February 4, 2022, JCC Hedler issued a Bifurcated Final Compensation Order on the question of whether the Claimant’s settlement of a third-party claim resulted

in the closure of workers’ compensation

mediation with respect to the third-party

benefits.

claim where he was represented by counsel.

By

way

of

background,

the

Claimant

sustained a compensable industrial accident on April 10, 2018.

Specifically, he was

The

Claimant’s

workers’

compensation

attorney did not attend the mediation. At the mediation, the parties reached a settlement

operating a company-owned vehicle when

agreement for the sum of $275,000.00. Later

he was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

in January of 2021, a General Release was sent

The claim was accepted as compensable

to the Claimant’s third-party attorney, who

and the Claimant was provided benefits. The

then forwarded it to the Claimant on January

Claimant retained an attorney for his workers’

19, 2021. On March 19, 2021, the parties fully

compensation claim.

The Claimant also

executed the General Release, and on April 6,

sought a third-party claim, which resulted

2021, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for

in the filing of an uninsured motorist lawsuit

Dismissal, which resulted in a Circuit Court

against the other driver and Zurich American

Order of Dismissal on April 7, 2021.

Insurance Company. For the third-party suit,

Subsequent

the Claimant retained a different attorney.

Release, the Claimant continued to seek

On January 6, 2021, the claimant attended

workers’ compensation benefits by filing a

to

executing

the

IN THE

General

NOW | 9

Petition for Benefits on March 22, 2021. On July 14, 2021, the adjuster in the workers’ compensation case filed a Notice of Denial, which asserted that any further benefits were denied due to the Claimant’s signing of the General Release.

JCC Hedler carefully reviewed the General Release (“Release”) between the Claimant (as “Releasor”) and Zurich American Insurance Company and Areas USA, Inc. (collectively, as “Releasee”), where the Claimant, for consideration of $275,000.00, released, satisfied and forever discharged the Releasee “of and from any and all manner of action and actions, cause and causes of action… claims, and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity, which Releasor ever had, now has,… or may have, against Releasee…pertaining to the subject motor vehicle accident.” The Claimant further “acknowledge[d] that it is solely Releasor’s responsibility to satisfy and any and all claims, suits, liens or subrogated interests arising out of the subject incident.”

Additionally, the Claimant “fully understands the terms of this General Release and is making full and final settlement of all claims of every nature and character which Releasor has against Releasee.”

The

Claimant

ambiguity

as

argued to

that

whether

there the

was

General

Release was intended to cover the workers’ compensation claim, and that the third-party settlement check created an ambiguity, as it only referenced the third-party claim.

JCC Hedler opined that the language in the General Release was clear and unambiguous, and therefore, the meaning of the General Release had to be determined from the four 10 | IN THE

NOW

corners of the document. He ultimately found that the General Release effectively closed any and all claims the Claimant had against the Employer, including his entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits.

He reasoned that there was no question the General Release was drafted as a result of the third-party claim and was clearly focused on the third-party claim.

However, the sweeping language contained in the General Release released any and all claims against the Employer/Carrier.

JCC Hedler also rejected the Claimant’s argument that the third-party attorney did not have authority to settle the workers’ compensation claim and that the General Release should not apply to same because the workers’ compensation attorney was not involved in the mediation. JCC Hedler found that the Claimant was properly represented by counsel and that the third-party attorney had authority to execute the General Release that plainly covered all other claims, including workers’ compensation. JCC Hedler placed more importance in the Claimant’s authority to execute the General Release, rather than the authority to settle the workers’ compensation claim.

Based upon the foregoing, JCC Hedler ruled that the Claimant’s third-party settlement extinguished his claims for workers’ compensation benefits, and dismissed the pending Petitions for Benefits.

Pearson v. Paradise Ford 951 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)

KK TAKEAWAY: The Major Contributing Cause (MCC) standard as applied in §440.09(1)(b) applies only when a workplace accident was combined with a preexisting injury or condition that was unrelated to an employment accident.

KK TAKEAWAY: Florida Statute §440.42(4), and not §440.09(1) (b), applies to cases involving a Claimant with injuries caused solely by multiple employment injuries with different employers.

KK TAKEAWAY: In cases involving a Claimant with injuries caused solely by multiple employment injuries with different employers, each Employer/ Carrier is responsible for their percentage of liability as determined by a JCC.

BACKGROUND: The Claimant filed Petitions for Benefits against two separate employers (Paradise Ford and Budget Group) that sought benefits for two work-related accidents involving injuries to his back. JCC Terlizzese found that 80% of Claimant’s condition was related to his first accident with Budget Group, and 20% was related to the second accident with Paradise Ford. Additionally, that since the second accident was not greater than 50% responsible for Claimant’s condition, that accident was not compensable. The case was appealed by the Claimant and Budget Group.

On appeal, the Claimant and Budget Group asserted that the JCC’s interpretation of Florida Statute §440.09(1)(b) was erroneous.

They argued that this section should be read as applying only when a Claimant’s preexisting condition did not arise in the course of employment. Thus, since the Claimant’s injuries were caused solely by employment accidents, §440.09(1)(b) is not applicable.

Paradise Ford maintained its argument that §440.09(1)(b) applies to any preexisting condition or injury, no matter what source.

Thus, where a Claimant’s condition is caused by the effects of a combination of two or more accidents, “only the employer/ carrier responsible for the accident which constitutes the major contributing cause of the claimant’s injuries is required to provide compensation or benefits.”

The Court agreed with the Claimant and Budget Group that §440.09(1)(b) does not IN THE

NOW | 11

apply in this case, and that §440.42(4) was controlling, as the Claimant’s injury was caused solely by multiple employment injuries with different employers. The Court based its decision partly on its interpretation of the 2003 amendments, in which the legislature intended §440.09(1)(b) “to apply only when the claimant’s need for treatment or benefits is caused by the impact of an employment accident

combining

with

a

preexisting

injury or condition that is unrelated to an employment accident.”

Additionally, the

Court believed that the interpretation of §440.09(1)(b) to apply to case involving a Claimant with injuries caused solely by multiple employment injuries with different employers would produce “absurd” results.

If applicable, then only one Employer/Carrier at most will be responsible for workers’ 12 | IN THE

NOW

compensation benefits.

Furthermore, in cases involving three (3) employment accidents that cause a need for compensation benefits, there could instances where no Employer/Carrier would be more than 50% responsible for the Claimant’s injuries and thus, no Employer/Carrier would be obligated to provide treatment or benefits. The Court did not believe the legislature intended for such a result.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court concluded that the JCC erred in not dividing liability 80% to Budget Group/CNA and 20% to Paradise Ford/Comp Options in accordance with his findings of responsibility under §440.42(4).

Lynn v. American Airlines Group OJCC Case No. 21-018336JIJ (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. February 11, 2022)

KK TAKEAWAY: A Carrier’s failure to schedule an appointment with an alternate physician pursuant to §440.13(2)(f) fifty-six (56) days after the request is made is an unreasonable delay justifying the forfeiture of selection of the alternate physician if the Carrier did not make any attempt to schedule an appointment with more than one physician.

as a flight attendant, but continued to suffer intermittent pain and limited motion of her right wrist and right shoulder. Not satisfied with her care, the Claimant sent the Carrier a letter via facsimile transmission requesting authorization of an alternate orthopedic surgeon on July 1, 2021.

At his deposition, the claims adjuster responsible for this claim testified that the Carrier received the letter on July 1, 2021, and on July 2, 2021, sent counsel for claimant a letter via facsimile that stated “[p]lease be advised your client’s onetime change request is being scheduled with Dr. Thomas Parent at Millennium Physician Group;

BACKGROUND:

appointment letter forthcoming.” That same

On February 11, 2022, JCC Jacobs issued a Final Compensation Order on the question of whether the claimant was entitled to her selection of a one-time change pursuant to Florida Stature §440.13(2)(f).

day, the adjuster sent an email to Dr. Parent’s office with the Claimant’s medical records and requested his office call or send an email to schedule an appointment for her. However, Dr. Parent’s office did not contact or schedule

By way of background, the Claimant sustained a compensable industrial accident on August 18, 2019 when she slipped on wet pavement and fell while walking to a shuttle bus to transport her from a hotel in Philadelphia to the airport, resulting in injuries to her right wrist and right shoulder. Upon her return she began receiving authorized medical care with Concentra and Med Express where she resided in Fort Myers. The Carrier then authorized an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Thompson, to treat her right shoulder, and another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Richards, to treat her right wrist injury. She soon came under the care of Dr. Richards for both of her compensable injuries, and Dr. Richards discharged the Claimant from his care in February 2021 without any physical restrictions or limitations.

The Claimant returned to work for the Insured IN THE

NOW | 13

assistance in scheduling an appointment with Dr. Parent, and on August 26, 2021, the nurse case manager scheduled an appointment for Dr. Parent to examine the Claimant on September 2, 2021. The Claimant was notified of the appointment the day it was scheduled.

However, on August 27, 2021, counsel for Claimant notified the Carrier that the Claimant would not be attending the appointment with Dr. Parent. The Carrier never attempted to schedule an appointment with any physician other than Dr. Parent in response to the onetime change request. an appointment for the claimant, so on July 6, 2021, the adjuster placed another telephone call and left a message for Dr. Parent’s office. The adjuster’s call was never returned.

On August 3, 2021, counsel for Claimant sent the adjuster a letter via facsimile requesting authorization of Claimant’s choice in one-time change of orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Robert Hill, pursuant to §440.13(2)(f). Three (3) days later on August 6, 2021, counsel for Claimant sent the adjuster another letter requesting the Carrier authorize Dr. Hill because the E/C forfeited its right of selection due to an unreasonable delay in the provision of the alternate physician. The adjuster did not respond to these letters.

On August 10, 2021, the adjuster sent a letter to Dr. Parent’s office requesting the scheduling of an appointment “ASAP.” Again, there was no response from Dr. Parent’s office.

On August 11, 2021, the Claimant filed a Petition for Benefits requesting authorization and provision of Dr. Hill as an alternate orthopedic surgeon. On August 19, 2021, the adjuster sent an email to the nurse case manager, seeking 14 | IN THE

NOW

In rendering his decision JCC Jacobs found that the Employer/Carrier authorized an alternate physician within five (5) days of the request in accordance with §440.13(2)(f). However, the Carrier’s fifty-six (56) day delay to provide the alternate physician was ruled unreasonable.

He noted that the adjuster unsuccessfully attempted to schedule an appointment with Dr. Parent’s office on two (2) occasions and thee adjuster testified to making five (5) to ten (10) additional telephone calls to schedule an appointment. However, JCC Jacobs labeled the Employer/Carrier’s lack of effort in scheduling an appointment with any physician other than Dr. Parent after no response as inexcusable and in violation of the express intent of the Workers’ Compensation Law to promptly deliver benefits to an injured worker.

Based upon the foregoing, JCC Jacobs concluded that the Employer/Carrier forfeited its right to select the one-time change in orthopedic surgeon, and that the Employer/Carrier shall authorize and schedule an appointment for Dr. Hill to examine and treat the Claimant.

COMPLIMENTARY CEU CREDITS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Our Workers’ Compensation attorneys are happy to present seminars to bring you and your teams up to speed. We cover many topics to assist you on claims handling and to keep you up-to-date on developments of the law.

Please see our new and improved WC course list and let our firm know if your company is interested.

• This is Workers’ Comp - This is Workers’ Comp on Drugs (1HR) • Major Contributing Cause in Florida Workers’ Compensation (1HR) • FL Workers’ Compensation 101 (1HR) • FL Workers’ Compensation 101 (2HRS) • Catastrophic Claim Handling: Investigation, Management, Litigation & Settlement (1HR) • Proving and Disproving Compensability - From Definitions to Defenses (2HRS) • Burdens of Proof for Compensability in Workers Compensation Claims (1HR) • Establishing Compensability and the Exceptions Thereto (1HR) • FL Workers’ Compensation Deadlines & Timeframes (1HR) • Adjusting Depositions - Mastering the Art of Testifying (1HR) • Return to Work Policies Make Cents (1HR) • Accident Investigations (1HR) • 4 HR Law & Ethics Update (4HRS) • “Arising Out Of” & “Course and Scope - What, How, Why are JCC’s Analyzing Them Now (1HR) • Top Ten Workers’ Compensation Cases of 2020 (1HR) • Covid 19 - Workers’ Compensation Legal Issues and Strategies (1HR) • Covid 19 - A One Year Retrospective (1HR) • The Challenges of the One Time Change Statute (1HR) • Issues w/ Florida Claims Admin Statute (1HR) CLICK TO REGISTER Register to select a course and coordinate a date and time for one of our WC Courses!

If you have questions or would like more information, please reach out to marketing@kelleykronenberg.com IN THE

NOW | 15

MEET THE

CONTRIBUTORS Associated General Contractors (AGC), for which he was instrumental in having the Fort Lauderdale

Joshua T. Higgins, Esq.

office of Kelley Kronenberg designated as the host

Editor and Business Unit Leader/Partner

for the meetings in South Florida, and he is the legal

Email Joshua T. Higgins

advisor to the Safety Alliance for Excellence (SAFE) since its inception. He assists his clients daily in all aspects of claims handling, both prior to and after litigation has begun, and has handled complex matters through trial on numerous occasions, with

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.

a high percentage of success.

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, 2021, and 2022

The team that Joshua leads comprises of nine (9)

(bestowed on less than 2.5% of attorneys in Florida),

people (attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants),

was named a 2020 and 2021 Top Lawyer in workers’

which collectively have over 90 years’ experience

compensation by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated (one

handling workers’ compensation matters in Florida.

of only two defense attorneys on the list), and was

Joshua handles workers’ compensation claims for a

named a 2022 Best Lawyers in America: Ones to

wide array of industries, for a clientele that ranges

Watch by U.S. News & World Report. Joshua is

from multi-billion companies to small employers.

also rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell,

One of the primary industries Joshua handles

based upon peer reviews, which indicates that he

workers’ compensation claims for is the construction

has achieved the highest professional and ethical

industry. He represents general contractors and

standards and is the highest rating a lawyer can

subcontractors of all sizes, and is enmeshed in the

receive.

construction industry of South Florida. He is an

Prior to joining the firm, Joshua worked as an

active member of the Construction Association of

Assistant State Attorney at the State Attorney’s

South Florida (CASF), where he has been on the

Office, 17th Judicial Circuit, in both the felony trial

Young Leaders Committee for several years (and

unit and county court division. While there, Joshua

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

tried more than 30 bench trials and 22 jury trials,

16 | IN THE

NOW

with his last trial featured on local Fox news.

Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida doing

During law school at Nova Southeastern University,

foreclosure defense for indigent elderly citizens.

Joshua served for two years as the Chairperson of

Prior to entering law school, Joshua obtained his

Administration for the Moot Court Honor Society,

undergraduate degree magna cum laude from the

a Staff Member for the Inter-American Center for

State University of New York at Buffalo, where he

Human Rights, and the Secretary for the National

was selected for induction into the Phi Beta Kappa

Security and Law Society. He received a perfect

Society, received English Departmental Honors, and

score from the Chief Justice in the first round of the

was listed in Who’s Who Among American College

ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition, and

Students. Additionally, Joshua was chosen as a

placed in the top 8 out of more than 125 students

Renaissance Scholar, an award bestowed on less

in the Feinrider Moot Court Competition. Further,

than 4% of graduates that year (only 82 students

Joshua was one of 40 law students selected

out of a class size of more than 2500), for those

nationwide as a summer fellow for the Florida

exhibiting scholarly excellence in at least two widely

Bar Foundation, which resulted in him working at

disparate areas of study.

Prior to joining the firm, he gained experience in

Brandon T. Haas, Esq. Associate Attorney Email Brandon Haas

Insurance Defense Litigation while working as a Law Clerk for a boutique Fort Lauderdale firm.

Brandon received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Central Florida and went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree, summa cum laude, from Nova Southeastern University Shepard

Brandon Haas is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg

Broad College of Law where he regularly made the

where he assists in handling matters related to

Dean’s List and was both a Junior Associate and

Workers’ Compensation.

Executive Editor for Nova Law Review. While in

Brandon Haas is an Attorney in the firm’s Fort

law school, he was a Legal Intern for the Broward

Lauderdale office where he assists in handling

County Environmental and Consumer Protection

matters related to Workers’ Compensation.

Division and served as a Teaching Assistant.

IN THE

NOW | 17

HELPING YOU

STAY AHEAD

BLOGS

A Time for Teaching I absolutely love what I do. For over twenty years now, I have defended the interests of businesses and their workers’ compensation carriers, and it never gets old.[…]

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

CLICK TO READ MORE

Hiring Choices Made Out of Desperation May Lead to Debacles Amy Siegel Oran. It is hard to pinpoint exactly why it is so difficult to find good employees these days; […]

CLICK TO READ MORE

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

18 | IN THE

NOW

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, […]

CLICK TO READ MORE

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 Don’t Be A Discovery Dinosaur HR Florida Newswire

Telecommuting Employees and the Potential for Workers’ Compensation Claims

Amy Siegel Oran

HR Florida Newswire

CLICK TO READ MORE

Indira Marin CLICK TO READ MORE

Guest column: Florida’s minimum wage increase raises workers’ compensation cost

What The Telecommuting Trend Could Mean for Florida Workers’ Comp Claims

Tampa Bay Business Journal

Insurance Journal

Amy Siegel Oran

Indira Marin

CLICK TO READ MORE

CLICK TO READ MORE

Yes, employees required to get vaccinated for COVID-19 can file a workers’ compensation claim for vaccine adverse effects

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

Verify

SHRM

Joshua Higgins

Joshua Higgins

CLICK TO READ MORE

CLICK TO READ MORE

IN THE

NOW | 19

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

Best Midsize Law Firms To Work For

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 “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Best 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

2021 “Diversity Team” winner

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

20 | IN THE

Fastest-Growing Private Companies in America

NOW

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 | 21

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

14

WEST PALM BEACH TALLAHASSEE FORT LAUDERDALE

OFFICES

NEW ORLEANS

TAMPA

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

NAPLES

NEW ORLEANS

NEW YORK

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

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

ORLANDO

TALLAHASSEE

TAMPA

WEST PALM BEACH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN THE

NOW | 23

WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381 | INFO@KKLAW.COM 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 | N a p l e s N e w O r l e a n s | N e w Yo r k | 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