June 2011

For those employers checking out the site, I am trying to catch up in posting these for you.  So, lets call this the video of the day feature (even though I posted a video once already today!)

Black Bear Insurance Agency and FloridaWC.com were nice enough to invite me to discuss a range of Florida W/C topics.  Here is our latest incarnation: my take on the misrepresntation defense and how to properly document your employee files. 

Once again, FloridaWC.com is a great resource for employers.  For those employers seeking information about WC law and insurance you can check their website here.

Once again, here is another video that I conducted with Andrew Roberts of Black Bear Insurance Agency.  It is part 2 of our discussion on the Statute of Limitations. 

You can check out their site here along with their very informative sister site, FloridaWC.com.

This past week I was fortunate enough to produce a few educational videos for FloridaWC.com and Black Bear Insurance Agency.  The idea was to capture the same educational feel as this blog. 

FloridaWC.com was kind enough to post an article of mine.  For those employers seeking information about WC law and insurance you can check their website here.

As for the video, enjoy part 1 on the Statute of Limitations:

With the state of IME’s these days, it’s always wise to consider using one for your defense.  After all, the limitations on how many you can have are lifted.

But, its important to also present evidence to combat Claimant’s own IME doctors.  Especially, when they present opinions regarding retroactive temporary benefits.


After the release of the Toscano decision (see my analysis here), there has been a mad rush to judgement among the Claimant’s bar and the defense bar.  And neither side seems rational.  For a case that was supposed to clear the air over TPD entitlement, Toscano has had the opposite effect.  Claimant attorneys now assume they just show up at trial and win TPD, and Carriers don’t even bother to document the times a Claimant refuses reasonable light duty employment. 

For me, the case was a simple, legal primer on what the burdens of proof and defense for TPD.  While, the specific ruling–an E/C cannot rely on a lay off to account for its defense–is bad for the defense, I think the case is helpful in assessing exposure and whether a solid affirmative defense exists.  For all the hoopla, Toscano stands for the old standard of “casual connection.”   It seems the entire W/C forgot that.

Now, there is a case where the First DCA affirms the established standard of “casual connection.”