KATINA KATCHIS, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI HEART INSTITUTE, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Katina Katchis appealed a summary judgment dismissing her negligence suit against Miami Heart Institute for injuries sustained in a fall on the Institute's premises. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Katchis was an employee of the Institute, making Workers' Compensation the exclusive remedy for her injury.
The court held that Katchis was an employee of the Miami Heart Institute, not the Credit Union, and therefore Workers' Compensation was her exclusive remedy. Accordingly, she was not entitled to maintain a negligence action against the Institute.
[1] Workers' Compensation may be the exclusive remedy for an injury if the injured party was an employee of the defendant at the time of the injury.
[2] An individual may be considered an employee for Workers' Compensation purposes despite claiming employment by a separate entity, if evidence shows they applied to the def…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain her action for negligence against the Miami Heart Institute and that it was entitled to a summary final judgment as a matter of law”
The trial court's ruling that Workers' Compensation exclusivity barred the negligence action
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKatchis fell on a staircase at Miami Heart Institute while present as a business invitee. She claimed to be an employee of the Miami Heart Institute C…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Workers' Compensation Exclusive Remedy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a summary final judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Dade County in favor of the defendant.
The plaintiff’s complaint sought damages for injuries sustained in a fall on a staircase while she was a business invitee on the premises of the Miami Heart Institute, due to the Institute’s alleged negligence. In its answer, the Heart Institute alleged, inter alia, the affirmative defense of immunity from suit since Workers’ Compensation was the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs injury because she was an employee of the Heart Institute at the time of her injury. Plaintiff took the position that she was the employee of the Miami Heart Institute Credit Union and not the Miami Heart Institute. She insists that this is true, notwithstanding the evidence adduced that she applied to the Heart Institute for the position she held, received her paychecks from it and accepted Workers’ Compensation benefits for her injuries from the Heart Institute’s insurance carrier. Based upon the evidence before him, the trial judge ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain her action for negligence against the Miami Heart Institute and that it was entitled to a summary final judgment as a matter of law.
We agree and affirm the judgment appealed. Chorak v. Naughton, 409 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Sullivan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 367 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1979); Matthews v. G.S.P. Corp., 354 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Hamilton v. Shell Oil Co., 233 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 237 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1970); Grice v. Suwannee Lumber Manufacturing Co., 113 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); sections 440.10, 440.-11(1), Florida Statutes (1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. Atl. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 454 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…1982) (holding that Workers Compensation statute barred suit of medical technologist who was allegedly raped and robbed in dormitory room which she rented from the hospital at which she was employed); see also Katchis v. Miami Heart Institute, Inc., 434 So. 2d 11 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); McDaniel v. Sheffield, 431 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1st DCA), petition for rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983); Davis v. Sun First National Bank of Orlando, 408 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), petition for rev. denied, 413 LSo. 2d 875 (…
Authorities Cited
- Chorak v. Naughton, 409 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Grice v. Suwannee Lumber Mfg. Co., 113 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Matthews v. G. S. P. Corp., 354 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Hamilton v. Shell OIL Co., 233 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Grizzel v. State, 237 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1970)