Disability Law

Second DCA: Employer Not Estopped from Asserting "Exclusive Remedy" Defense

By David A. McCranie, Esq.

In Tractor Supply Co. v. Kent, which I discussed here, the Fifth DCA held that an employer was not estopped from asserting workers' compensation immunity as a defense to a civil action by its injured employee merely because it contended that the employee's ongoing medical condition is no longer attributable to the on-the-job accident, but to a pre-existing condition.

Now the Second DCA has followed suit in Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. v. Monteil et al., decided on 5/14/2008. Monteil was injured in a compensable workers' compensation accident while working for Coca-Cola.  They paid him benefits after the accident for approximately twelve weeks, but then concluded that his ongoing medical condition was no longer related to his work injury, but to a pre-existing degenerative condition, and therefore controverted further benefits at that point.  Rather than filing a petition for benefits, Monteil sued Coca-Cola for negligence in allegedly causing his accident.  Coca-Cola moved for summary judgment, contending that the "exclusive remedy" provision of §440.11 barred the action, but Monteil successfully opposed the motion by contending that Coca-Cola, by controverting further benefits, was estopped from asserting the exclusive remedy defense.  The Second DCA disagreed and reversed.  Quoting Kent with approval, the court said:

Nothing is quick and efficient about allowing an employee to by-pass the act and sue in circuit court where the employer asserts that comp benefits are not recoverable because the injury/illness was the result of a pre-existing condition. That issue should typically be litigated in a workers' compensation setting.

 

Still, I wonder if the result might have been different if the employee had filed a workers' compensation claim and the JCC had agreed with Coca-Cola that the accident was not the "major contributing cause" of the ongoing medical problem. Then, the question would not be one of estoppel, but of whether the employee was left without a remedy.

Full post as published by Florida Workers’ Compensation Law Blog on May 15, 2008 (boomark / email).