MUNFORD, INC., SELF INSURED, APPELLANT,
v.
CATHY NECRASON, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the employer Munford seeks to overturn an order requiring it to pay for rehabilitation services provided by Statewide Rehabilitation, Inc., whose stock is wholly owned by the law firm representing the claimant. The court affirms the order but warns against continued representation of claimants by attorneys with financial interests in the rehabilitation provider.
The court affirms the deputy commissioner's order requiring Munford to pay for Statewide's rehabilitation services, but retroactive application of the Barnmac decision prohibiting such attorney representation is not warranted. However, the court admonishes that attorneys owning rehabilitation providers are disqualified from representing clients seeking awards from those providers in future proceedings.
[1] An employer may be required to provide rehabilitation services to a claimant, even if the rehabilitation provider is owned by members of the claimant's law firm, if the p…
[2] The retrospective application of a judicial decision disqualifying attorneys for conflicts of interest is not warranted when the conduct occurred prior to the decision.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“While we agree with the E/C's position that the representation by attorneys owning Statewide of clients seeking the award of rehabilitation services to be performed by Statewide is improper, and subjects the attorneys to disqualification for the reasons explained in Bammac, we also find that retrospective application of the Bammac decision is not warranted.”
The court's holding balancing the ethical impropriety of the arrangement against the principle of prospective application of new legal standards.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant suffered a work-related injury on May 13, 1982, and reached maximum medical improvement on February 25, 1983. The employer's rehabilitation 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 Rehabilitation Services cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the employer Munford, Inc. (Munford) seeks review of the deputy commissioner’s order directing it to provide rehabilitation to the claimant. Specifically, Munford objects to the order requiring it to bear the expense of rehabilitation services to be provided by Statewide Rehabilitation, Inc. (Statewide). All of the stock of Statewide is owned by members of the law firm that represents the appellee/claimant.
This case is controlled by this court’s opinion and decision in the case of Barnmac, Inc., and Cigna Corporation v. Raymond Grady, 500 So. 2d 274 (1986), on the narrow issue presented on this appeal.
Claimant in the instant case received a work-related injury on May 13, 1982, and reached maximum medical improvement with respect to that injury on February 25, 1983. A rehabilitation counselor provided by the employer first contacted claimant on January 31, 1983. Subsequently, due to claimant’s non-work-related health problems, there was a period from August 1983 until January 1984, when the employer’s rehabilitation counselor was not in contact with the claimant.
Once claimant recovered from her secondary health problems, the counselor reestablished contact with her. The counsel-or’s efforts were directed primarily to a program of on-the-job training as opposed to a formal educational or training program. However, from January 1984 through September 19, 1985, the counselor was unsuccessful in her efforts to obtain a job for this claimant.
Claimant was referred to Statewide Rehabilitation, Inc. by her lawyer. On June 6, 1985, Mr. Charles May, president of Statewide Rehabilitation, Inc., conducted an extended interview with claimant. Following this interview, Mr. May prepared an Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan (IWRP) for claimant. This IWRP was filed with Munford on June 24, 1985. The deputy commissioner’s order directed Munford to provide rehabilitation to the claimant under the direction of Statewide Rehabilitation, Inc., and authorized Statewide to implement the vocational objectives set out in their IWRP. We have fully considered the facts disclosed by the record in this case, and have had the additional benefit of supplemental briefs and oral argument in conjunction with our consideration of Bammac and another case presenting the same issue (see Bammac opinion, footnote 1). While we agree with the E/C’s position that the representation by attorneys owning Statewide of clients seeking the award of rehabilitation services to be performed by Statewide is improper, and subjects the attorneys to disqualification for the reasons explained in Bammac, we also find that retrospective application of the Bammac decision is not warranted. We therefore affirm with the same admonition as stated in our Bammac decision with regard to the attorneys’ representation of the claimant in connection with further proceedings seeking orders or awards involving Statewide.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.