Charles Gladden v. Fisher Thomas, Inc., The Green etc.
16-1752
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 19, 2017Background
- On June 2, 2009, Charles Gladden fell from a second-floor job site and was seriously injured while performing flooring work at a National Park Service project.
- Green-Simmons was the general contractor; Fisher Thomas was a subcontractor whose employee Averett allegedly caused the unsafe lift with a forklift; Gladden performed work via a sub-subcontract through his company, Gladden Carpet.
- Green-Simmons, Fisher Thomas, and Wilson Floor maintained workers’ compensation insurance as required; Gladden, an officer of Gladden Carpet, had timely elected the corporate-officer exemption from workers’ compensation.
- Gladden sued Green-Simmons, Fisher Thomas, and Averett in negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting workers’ compensation immunity because Gladden was a statutory employee under the Workers’ Compensation Law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Gladden an “employee” for immunity purposes despite his exemption; the district court affirmed, but on different reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an exempt corporate officer can be treated as an “employee” for workers’ compensation immunity | Gladden: his corporate-officer exemption removes him from the definition of "employee," so defendants are not entitled to immunity | Defendants: regardless of the exemption, Gladden is a statutory employee for immunity purposes; they are immune from tort claims | The exemption does not permit avoidance of §440.11 immunity except as the statute expressly allows; defendants entitled to immunity |
| Whether workers’ compensation definition of “employee” controls immunity analysis | Gladden: the plain definition excludes exempt officers, so it should control | Defendants: immunity context (per Weber) may treat persons differently than the benefits-eligibility definition | Court follows Weber: context matters; immunity is not tied solely to entitlement to benefits |
| Whether statutory scheme permits tort suit against noncorporate parties when officer is exempt | Gladden: exemption allows tort suits against individuals/entities that would otherwise have immunity | Defendants: statutory text and related provisions (e.g., §440.075) limit any tort remedy to actions against the corporate employer only | Court: exemption does not broadly waive immunity; only the limited common-law remedy against the corporate employer is provided by statute |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Gladden: disputed material facts about status/pre-notice may preclude summary judgment | Defendants: legal issue of immunity resolves entitlement as a matter of law | Court: affirmed summary judgment for defendants (though on statutory interpretation/Weber grounds rather than the trial court’s rationale) |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. Dobbins, 616 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1993) (context of immunity differs from definition of entitlement to benefits; exempt officer may still receive immunity protections)
- McLean v. Mundy, 81 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1955) (workers’ compensation provides exclusive, limited remedy)
- VMS, Inc. v. Alfonso, 147 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (general contractor that secures or causes coverage may obtain the same immunity)
- Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002) (appellate tipstaff/"tipsy coachman" doctrine permitting affirmance on any correct ground in the record)