Gomez Lawn Service, Inc. v. The Hartford
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16460
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Claimant Eugenio Gomez and his wife own Gomez Lawn Service, Inc. (Employer); Claimant is president and performs services as an employee; Claimant did not elect to be exempt from chapter 440; July 13, 2010 motor vehicle accident causing cervical and lumbar injuries; PIP benefits covered medical treatment; December 1, 2010 Employer notified carrier of claim; January 26, 2011 Claimant filed petition after carrier failed to activate the claim; JCC denied (timeliness) based on 440.185(1) and sought to apply 440.185(l)(b)/(d) exceptions; JCC concluded notice was untimely by 90+ days; appeal challenges the JCC’s statutory interpretation and authority.
- Issues:[{
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 440.185(1) require only notice to the employer within 30 days to satisfy notice? | Gomez: notice to employer within 30 days suffices; carrier imputed by 440.41(1) | Carrier/JCC: must notify carrier within 30 days or apply exceptions | Reversed; notice to employer suffices; no carrier notice deadline implied |
| May the JCC read a separate carrier-notice deadline into 440.185(1)? | Gomez: Legislature did not create carrier-notice deadline in 440.185(1) | Carrier: statutory scheme requires timely carrier awareness under 440.185(1) | Reversed; cannot graft non-textual deadline; statutory text controls |
| Are the employer and the carrier’s interests one and the same for purposes of jurisdiction? | Gomez: interests can diverge; not alter ego; appeal proper | Carrier: interests identical to Employer’s; no subject-matter jurisdiction | Not identical; jurisdiction proper; appeal permissible |
| Did the employer have standing to appeal the JCC’s order? | Employer had standing as it bears potential liability and favored outcome varies | Carrier argued lack of standing due to not adverse outcome | Employer had standing; appeal timely and proper |
| Was the penalty under 440.185(9) improperly read as a non-textual penalty by the JCC? | Not applicable; penalty not invoked by Employer | JCC imposed an impermissible equitable remedy | Issue preserved; reversal/remand for proper application |
Key Cases Cited
- Bend v. Shamrock Services, 59 So.3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (JCC lacks authority to read into 440.185 a carrier-notice rule not textually required)
- McArthur v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 35 So.3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (JCC has no authority to sanction for violations not provided by statute)
- Germ v. St. Luke’s Hosp. Ass’n, 993 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (plain-language approach to statutory interpretation; 440.185(1) requires only employer notice within 30 days)
- Jackson v. Computer Science Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (equity has no role when remedy exists at law in statutory scheme)
- Hanssen v. Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc., 727 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (distinguishes employer-carrier knowledge and prejudicial acts)