Ocean Reef Club, Inc. v. Wilczewski
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4352
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ocean Reef Club, Inc. appeals non-final orders denying its summary judgment defense of workers’ compensation tort immunity in favor of Wilczewski and Leon.
- Wilczewski (hairstylist) and Leon (nail technician) allege exposure to chemical fumes in the Ocean Reef beauty salon causing asthma-like symptoms and medical treatment.
- Both employees reported health issues to a supervisor; Ocean Reef did not timely notify its workers’ compensation carrier.
- Carrier denied benefits, arguing illnesses were not in the course of employment and the claims were time-barred; the employer’s knowledge of the claims was undisputed.
- The trial court denied summary judgment on immunity, and the appellate court affirmed, finding immunity does not apply as a matter of law under the facts.
- The court held Ocean Reef is estopped from asserting workers’ compensation immunity where it had knowledge of the claims and failed to notify the carrier, and where denial by the carrier was inconsistent with the immunity defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to report to the carrier estop immunity? | Wilczewski/Leon argue non-notice estops Ocean Reef from immunity. | Ocean Reef contends immunity applies regardless of reporting delay. | Immunity not barred by estoppel under these facts. |
| Is withholding notice inconsistent with immunity defense on grounds of estoppel? | Timmeny-based rationale supports estoppel when employer’s conduct contradicts denial of benefits. | No inconsistent representation by employer; employee responsibility to pursue benefits remains. | Estoppel not established; immunity defense can proceed. |
| May a carrier’s denial of benefits be imputed to defeat immunity? | Carrier denial, if inconsistent with immunity, supports estoppel. | Carrier denial does not automatically negate immunity if there was no misrepresentation by employer. | Carrier denial that is irreconcilable with immunity can estop immunity; here, not declared to estop. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timmeny v. Tropical Botanicals Corp., 615 So.2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (employer notice duties; equitable considerations in immunity)
- Mena v. J.I.L. Constr. Group Corp., 79 So.3d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (carrier denial as irreconcilable with immunity may estop)
- Coastal Masonry v. Gutierrez, 30 So.3d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (judicial estoppel requires inconsistent positions and reliance)
- Tractor Supply Co. v. Kent, 966 So.2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (employer cannot assert immunity after inconsistent conduct)
- Byerley v. Citrus Publ’g, Inc., 725 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (estoppel when employer’s inconsistent position; exclusivity defense)
- Cooper Schroeder v. Peoplease Corp., 18 So.3d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (contextual discussion of benefits processes (case cited) )
- Jones v. Martin Elecs., Inc., 932 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 2006) (employee rights; processing of workers’ compensation petitions)