HARRY DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWIN M. GREEN, INC., AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY INSURANCE CO. AND THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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.
An employee injured at work received partial workers' compensation benefits that the employer paid voluntarily after refusing to investigate the claimant's claim or participate in discovery. The Florida Supreme Court held that an employer cannot avoid paying attorney's fees by willfully remaining ignorant of the employee's full entitlement and then paying only after the claimant's attorney forced the issue through depositions.
The Court reversed the lower decisions and held that an employer cannot avoid attorney's fees by willfully failing to investigate a claimant's entitlement and then claiming payments are 'voluntary' once the claimant's attorney breaches the employer's 'wall of willful ignorance.' An employer who does not exercise its right to investigate and forces the claimant to hire an attorney for depositions and other discovery is not protected from attorney's fees by ignorance resulting from failure to investigate.
[1] An employer cannot avoid paying attorneys' fees by claiming ignorance of benefits due when the claimant's attorney has breached that ignorance through investigation and l…
[2] An employer's "voluntary" commencement of payments after a claimant has incurred legal expenses to prove entitlement does not absolve the employer from paying attorneys'…
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“The Florida Workmen's Compensation Law does not contemplate that an employer may insulate itself from knowledge that benefits may be due to a claimant and then, when its wall of willful ignorance is breached by claimant's attorney, commence "voluntary" payments and resist payment of attorneys' fees.”
Establishes the core holding that employers cannot use willful ignorance to avoid attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry Davis suffered an eye injury while employed by Edwin M. Green, Inc. The employer voluntarily paid benefits for 23% disability but refused to inv…
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 Willful Ignorance cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner-claimant suffered an eye injury. Benefits for 23 per cent disability were paid voluntarily by respondent employer. Petitioner contended additional benefits were merited, and sought these. Twice petitioner scheduled workmen’s compensation hearings to establish his claim which both times were unilaterally can-celled by the employer. The employer’s physician declined to discuss the case with claimant’s counsel. A third hearing was scheduled at claimant’s request, and the employer’s physician was deposed, giving evidence justifying 100 per cent disability; after deposition and before the hearing, the employer conceded that the additional benefits were due, and commenced payment.
The employer resisted payment of attorneys’ fees to claimant’s counsel for the additional benefits, contending that the additional payments were voluntarily made, and no fees were entitled under Fla.Stat. § 440.34(1), F.S.A. Employer contended *5it commenced the payments as soon as it was informed they were due. The Judge of Industrial Claims concluded that no attorneys’ fees were due. The Industrial Relations Commission affirmed.
We reverse. The Florida Workmen’s Compensation Law does not contemplate that an employer may insulate itself from knowledge that benefits may be due to a claimant and then, when its wall of willful ignorance is breached by claimant’s attorney, commence “voluntary” payments and resist payment of attorneys’ fees. As this Court stated in Thompson v. W. T. Edwards Tuberculosis Hospital, 164 So.2d 13 (Fla.1964).
“Our conclusion harmonizes with the philosophy of workmen’s compensation to the end that an employee shall receive the benefits to which he is entitled with reasonable promptness, consistent with the employer’s right to make a reasonable investigation regarding his liability.” (p. 15)
An employer who does not exercise his right to investigate, and who forces the burden of proving liability on the claimant to the extent the claimant requires assistance of an attorney for depositions or other actions, is not protected from payment of attorneys’ fees by ignorance resulting from failure to investigate liability.
The decision of the Industrial Relations Commission is quashed. This cause is remanded to the Commission for further remand to the Judge of Industrial Claims for the purpose of determining the amount of and awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
The Latt Maxcy Corp. & Underwriters Adjusting Co. v. Mann, 393 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…result follows logically from the recognition that during the 21 day period provided by the statute, the employer has both the right and the duty to make a reasonable investigation regarding the validity of the claim. Davis v. Edwin M. Green, Inc., 240 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1970); Thompson v. W. T. Edwards Tuberculosis Hospital, 164 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1964); Smith v. Dixie Packers, Inc., 384 So. 2d 709, 1980 FLW 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Under a reasonable interpretation of Section 440.34(1), the right to investigate…
-
G & S Packing Co. & Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Driggers, 382 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…r could know, prior to being notified, that the physician’s examination . would result in a permanent partial disability rating.” Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Branch, 319 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1975). However, as indicated in Davis v. Edwin M. Green, Inc., 240 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1970): An employer who does not exercise his right to investigate and who forces the burden of proving liability on the claimant to the extent the claimant requires assistance of an attorney for depositions or other actions, is not protected f…
-
Smith v. Dixie Packers, Inc., 384 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…aimant to the extent that the claimant requires assistance of an attorney for actions necessary to perfect the claim, is not protected from payment of attorney’s fees by ignorance resulting from failure to investigate. Davis v. Edwin M. Green, Inc., 240 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1970). The cases relied upon by the employer-carrier are not applicable. This case does not involve a simple matter of a physician’s delay in reporting the appropriate disability, Lehigh Portland Cement Company v. Branch, 319 So. 2d 13 (Fla.197…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. W. T. Edwards Tuberculosis Hosp. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 164 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1964)