McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver, Stern & Thomas, P.A.

Chiang v. Wildcat Groves, Inc.

22 FLW D2425

Claimant suffered questionable workers' compensation accident but thereafter settled with the employer/carrier denying in the Joint Petition Settlement Agreement that a compensable accident had occurred. Thereafter, injured worker sued treating physician in malpractice claim and treating physician filed a Motion for Contribution against the employer as a joint tortfeasor pursuant to the Florida Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, Section 768.31, Florida Statutes. Employer defended on the basis that the claimant, by accepting the settlement of his workers' compensation claim, had elected his remedy under the Florida Workers' Compensation Act and therefore, the exclusive remedy provisions precluded the Claim for Contribution. Court determined that exclusive remedy provisions did not preclude the contribution claim in this instance. Pursuant to the stipulation between the claimant and the employer/carrier, there was an agreement that the accident did not happen within the course and scope of employment. This allegation was made in the contribution claim and since in accordance with this stipulation there was no employment relationship and the accident did not occur within the course and scope of employment, there could be no exclusive remedy protection. The employer/carrier did have the right to plead and prove through an affirmative defense that workers' compensation immunity was applicable even though a contrary stipulation was entered into between the employer/carrier and the claimant. The Doctrine of Election of Remedies only forecloses an employee from later suing an employer in tort after the employee actively pursues and receives workers' compensation benefits. In this case, this doctrine would not apply since it was not the employee seeking a claim but a third party. In addition, the alleged third party tortfeasor was not a party to the workers' compensation proceedings or the settlement agreement which was approved by the JCC. Accordingly, he cannot be bound by nor have his interests affected by what transpired in those proceedings.

Cases

Workers' Compensation

Chiang v. Wildcat Groves, Inc.