Jones et ux v. Martin Electronics, Inc.
31 FLW S380
Supreme Court. An employee who is injured in the work place during the course and scope of his employment and receives workers’ compensation benefits but does not pursue a workers’ compensation claim to a conclusion on the merits, may file an action against the employer for that work place injury if the employer’s conduct is of a type that rises to the level of intentional conduct substantially certain to result in injury. Workers’ compensation immunity is not applicable in this instance.
In this case, the claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim for an adjustment in the rate of attendant care benefits he was receiving. An order was entered awarding the claimed benefits. Court determined that the petition for an adjustment in attendant care benefit rates under the circumstances of this case did not amount to the pursuit to a conclusion on the merits of the workers’ compensation claim and therefore did not constitute an inconsistent election of remedies to remedies sought in a civil cause of action. The petition was simply a request for a change in the rate used to calculate a benefit that the compensation carrier had been voluntarily providing from the time of injury. The issue of whether the incident which resulted in the claimant’s injuries was compensable or caused by neglect or intent was not litigated pursuant to the petition filed by the claimant. Neither the claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits nor the extent of his injuries was a contested issue since the workers’ compensation carrier had voluntarily made benefit payments to the claimant. Since the petition, hearing, and resulting order did not constitute litigation to a conclusion on the merits of the claimant’s workers’ compensation claim, this petition did not constitute an election of remedy precluding a civil cause of action being filed against the employer.
The petition to correct the attendant care benefits also did not evidence a conscious intent to choose workers’ compensation benefits and reject any potential tort claim. In the pretrial stipulation during the workers’ compensation proceedings, the claimant answered in the affirmative that the accident or occupational disease had been accepted as compensable. Court determined, however, that this did not constitute a conscious intent by the claimant to elect his workers’ compensation remedy and to waive any other rights.
Court concluded that the allowance of the claimant in this instance to file a civil cause of action would not create a situation of double recovery for the claimant who had been paid workers’ compensation benefits in the form of lost wages and medical expenses. The civil cause of action for an employer’s intentional tortuous conduct represents a supplemental remedy for damages such as pain and suffering and loss of spousal services which are not provided for under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The tort action may also provide an avenue for the imposition of punitive damages.
If an injured employee files a civil cause of action for damages previously compensated by workers’ compensation benefits, compensation insurance carriers are authorized to file a Notice of Payment of Benefits which operates as a lien on any subsequent judgment to the extent that the judgment includes damages of the same type as benefits paid under the workers’ compensation plan. If, however, the employer has engaged in conduct against the injured employee such that the employee is entitled to damages for pain and suffering and other elements not covered under the workers’ compensation scheme, Section 440.39 allows the workers’ compensation carrier to be refunded or credited for amounts previously paid. In addition, Florida’s collateral source statute would prevent a double recovery on the part of the injured employee. See Section 768.76, Florida Statutes.