Workers' Compensation
Listed below is McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver & Stern, P.A.'s workers' compensation case law database. The database dates back until 1971 and includes over 5500 workers' compensation court decisions.
To view the case summaries, select one of the general topics listed below.
McClanahan et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Juvenile Justice and Department of Management Services
854 So.2d 793, 28 FLW D2078
In interpreting the Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683 (Fla. 2000) case, the court reaffirmed the existence of the intentional misconduct exception to the workers’ compensation immunity provision under which an employer may be held liable in tort if it has engaged in conduct that was intended to or substantially certain to result in an employee’s injury or death. The "substantial certainty of injury" standard must be evaluated under an objective test as opposed to a subjective one. In other words, the plaintiff need not show that the employer actually knew that its conduct was substantially certain to cause an injury. Rather, the employer may be held liable if it should have known that the conduct complained of was substantially certain to result in injury or death. Therefore, utilizing this objective test, an analysis of the circumstances of the case would be required to determine whether a reasonable person would understand that the employer’s conduct was substantially certain to result in injury or death to an employee. The employer’s conduct must at least be worse than gross negligence.Plaintiffs sought recovery against the defendants based upon the allegation that the air quality of the building where they worked had caused injury or death. The evidence revealed that the defendants were made aware of the problems with the air quality in the building and they did little to remedy the situation other than to clean and replace air-conditioning filters. In addition, they were less than candid with the employees about the extent of the problems or the risk they posed. The evidence might support a conclusion that the defendants negligently exposed the employees to increased risk; however, the defendants’ acts or omissions were not substantially certain to result in injury or death. Summary judgment in favor of defendants affirmed.
