Cases

Deceased employee worked for employer/defendant where he was allegedly exposed to hazardous material and allegedly as a result, subsequently died of cancer. The decedent's wife sought to obtain workers' compensation benefits from the employer but was advised that her "husband's illness was not a work related illness."  In response to the petition for workers' compensation benefits, the employer filed a Notice of Denial stating that "entire claim denied as claimant's employment is not the major contributing cause of his death."  Upon receipt of the Notice of Denial, the deceased employee's estate voluntarily dismissed the workers' compensation petition and filed a wrongful death suit against the defendant employer.  Lower court entered summary judgment based on exclusive remedy of workers' compensation statute. The question in this case is whether the defendant employer was estopped from claiming workers' compensation immunity because of the denial of workers' compensation benefits.

Appellate court review on a summary judgment motion is de novo.

Florida Workers' Compensation Statutes provide a strict liability system of compensation for injured workers.  In return, an employee is generally precluded from bringing a common law negligence action.  However, where injuries are not encompassed within the Workers' Compensation Act, the employee is free to pursue his or her common law remedies.  If an employer takes the position in a workers' compensation proceeding that the employee is not owed workers' compensation because the injury did not occur within the course and scope of employment or that there was no employment relationship, the employer may be subsequently estopped from claiming immunity on the grounds that the workers' compensation exclusive remedy was workers' compensation.  However, if an employer merely states a defense within the workers' compensation proceedings, an employer may not be estopped from later asserting immunity.

The employer alleged that the position taken in the workers' compensation proceeding was a "medical causation" defense and by asserting such, it was not taking inconsistent position to that taken in the civil cause of action estopping the employer from asserting the exclusive remedy doctrine defense.  The court, however, determined that this defense only applies when the accidental compensable injury is not the major contributing cause of a resulting injury.  On the other hand, if there was a denial of an entire claim because of the claimant's employment altogether (not accpeting the fact that there was a compensable injury), this would be inconsistent and would estop the assertion of the exclusive remedy doctrine defense in the civil cause of action.  Because it was unclear as to the position taken by the employer in this workers' compensation case, summary judgment entered by lower court reversed since there was a question of fact in interpretation as to the position being taken by the employer and whether that position estopped it from asserting the exclusive remedy defense.