Kelley Kronenberg - In the Know – Workers’ Compensation - July 2022 by Kelley Kronenberg

IN THE

J U LY 2022

NOW

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION EDITION

IN THIS ISSUE: • COVID-19 • 120 Day Rule • Furnishing of Medical Care • Employment Law Update

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

EDITOR’S LETTER

WELCOME Joshua T. Higgins, Esq.

COVID-19 Baker v. Sumpter Enterprises, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

Editor, and Business Unit Leader/Partner

OJCC Case No. 20-019433MAM (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. February 15, 2022)

something he was looking most for out of an

You never fail until you stop trying.

–Albert Einstein

employer.

This echoed what my associate

and co-contributor of this newsletter Brandon

year law students, about the practice of law and what to expect. In speaking with the students, I asked them what the most important thing they were looking for out of a prospective employer, once they graduated from law school and passed the Bar exam. Predictably, several of the students cited financial considerations, while others cited a specific practice of law (International Law! Real Estate! Entertainment Law!), and others focused on work-life balance and the ability to work remotely. One student, however, emphasized that mentorship was

OJCC Case No. 21-009194FJC (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. February 21, 2022)

Haas said to me when I was interviewing him. Both this student, and my associate, are and were very high achievers in law school (ranked

Recently I was tasked with speaking with first

120 DAY RULE Collins v. Outstanding Construction Design, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-8

in the top 10 in their classes), which makes the

FURNISHING OF MEDICAL CARE Howard v. J.E. Nelson Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-9 OJCC Case No. 15-010793FJC (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. March 8, 2022)

fact that they both emphasized the importance of mentorship even more impressive.

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

an age where more and more people are working remotely and there is not as much

CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-19

personal interaction between co-workers, it is imperative that something as fundamental as

HELPING YOU STAY AHEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21

mentorship does not become forgotten and ignored, as preparing the next generation of the workforce is crucial to future success of individuals and of businesses. Oh, and in case you were wondering…I hired the law clerk.

AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23

FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-25

Baker v. Sumpter Enterprises, Inc. OJCC Case No. 20-019433MAM (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. February 15, 2022)

KK TAKEAWAY: To find a COVID-19 claim to be compensable, the claimant must present objective relevant medical opinions and must meet the elements and standards of one of three theories of compensability (exposure, occupational disease, and accident).

BACKGROUND: On February 15, 2022, JCC Massey issued a Final Compensation Order in the first Final Hearing ruling on the compensability of COVID-19. For this claim, the Claimant began working for the employer at a fast-food restaurant on February 7, 2020. In April or May 2020, she tested positive for COVID-19 and did not experience any symptoms. She alleged she contracted COVID-19 from one or more of her co-workers at work. Before providing an analysis of compensability under three (3) theories (exposure, occupational disease, and accident), JCC Massey noted that there was no direct evidence that the Claimant had been diagnosed with COVID-19. He did not accept the Claimant’s lay testimony or her attempt to rely on unauthenticated hearsay documents/ statements. He also rejected Claimant IME Dr. Leonard Cosmo’s diagnosis of COVID-19 for the Claimant as he admitted he did not personally conduct any testing, nor did he rely

4 | IN THE

NOW

on any medical records or actual test results. Rather, he based his diagnosis on what the claimant had told him, with no objective relevant medical findings to support it. JCC Massey then began his analysis under the exposure theory, which gives rise to a higher burden than the usual competent substantial evidence standard. Exposure cases require a clear and convincing evidence standard and a “certain degree of specificity as to the specific substance involved and the levels to which the employee was exposed for an injury from exposure to be compensable.” Here, the Claimant relied on her personal belief that several of her co-workers tested positive for COVID-19 in the timeframe that she did (April or May 2020). She further alleged that she was exposed to the co-workers indoors for hours at a time, only traveled from home to work and back, and had not been in close proximity to any human being, “even for a moment.” JCC Massey rejected the Claimant’s arguments, as there was no evidence of who the co-workers were and no evidence that those specific co-workers had COVID-19. The employer representative acknowledged that four (4) employees other than the claimant had COVID-19, but even accepting this as a fact did not convince JCC Massey that is how or where the Claimant contracted it. The Claimant also offered no testimony as to when or how often she worked with any of the workers. The employer representative testified that of the four (4) workers who had COVID-19, the Claimant would have worked with one of them for two (2) hours on April 24th and April 25th,

and with another for two (2) hours on April 28th. JCC Massey found that this was not evidence of a hazard greater than to which the general public is exposed, and was in contrast to the Claimant’s assertion that she worked with these co-workers continuously for hours at a time. JCC Massey also found that the Claimant’s assertion that she never went anywhere that she was in close proximity to another individual other than home and work “difficult to believe,” and that it ignored the fact that other individuals in the Claimant’s household went to places such as the grocery store where they may have been exposed to COVID-19. He then noted that even if he were to accept the Claimant’s testimony in full,

there was no medical evidence to support it and thus, would not be enough to support a finding of compensability, as previously noted. Dr. Cosmo did not have any specific or reliable information as to the “specific substance involved” or the “levels to which the employee was exposed.” He rather only knew that some number of co-workers in the Claimant’s workplace allegedly had COVID-19 during the general timeframe the Claimant allegedly had it. JCC Massey found this was neither an objective relevant medical finding nor clear and convincing evidence of a causal connection. Based upon the foregoing, JCC Massey found that the Claimant did not meet her burden of proving compensability under an exposure theory.

IN THE

NOW | 5

JCC Massey further found that the Claimant had not carried her burden under an occupational disease theory. He found that COVID-19 is not a disease which is due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the fast-food business. COVID-19, at the time of the hearing, could be reasonably considered as an ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed at all times. As such, there was no reliable evidence that the nature of the employment was the major contributing cause of the disease, nor had it been shown by medical evidence as previously discussed. The record did not contain any support for a finding that COVID-19 should be considered an occupational disease under the facts of the case. In addition to exposure and occupation disease theory, the Claimant asserted that her alleged exposure to COVID-19 at work was an “accident” as defined in Florida Statute section 440.02(1). However, JCC Massey found that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of an identifiable “event” that suddenly happened at work, and that such an event caused her contraction of COVID-19. It would be mere speculation to reach such a conclusion. Based upon the foregoing, the claim for compensability of the claimant’s alleged COVID-19 exposure was denied.

6 | IN THE

NOW

carrier can establish material facts relevant to the issue of compensability that it could

Collins v. Outstanding Construction Design, Inc.

not have discovered through reasonable

OJCC Case No. 21-009194FJC (FL.Off.Judge.

By way of background, the Claimant was

Comp.Cl. February 21, 2022)

investigation within each 120-day period.

found dead on August 2, 2019 on a job site at a golf course where he was working as a

KK TAKEAWAY:

subcontractor for the Insured. On August 14,

The payment of funeral expenses is a provision

2019, the Employer/Carrier paid the invoice

of a benefit for purposes of the 120-day rule

for the Claimant’s funeral expenses. On April

in 440.20(4).

21, 2021, three (3) Petitions for Benefits were filed on behalf of the Claimant’s three (3)

KK TAKEAWAY:

natural children. Each Petition sought proper

F.S. 440.192(8) and F.S. 440.20(4) contain two

payment of death benefits from the date of

(2) separate 120-day periods, both of which

accident to the present and continuing, and

must be complied with for an employer/carrier

proper payment of funeral benefits.

to prevent being estopped from denying compensability under major contributing cause

The Employer/Carrier filed a Response to the Petitions for Benefits on May 5, 2021, which in part stated as follows: “Death benefits are

BACKGROUND:

not able to be started at this time. The birth

On February 21, 2022, JCC Clark issued

determining whom the beneficiaries are,”

Final

Evidentiary

Order

regarding

compensability following an order granting a Motion to Bifurcate entered on September 9, 2021. The Motion limited the dispute to be adjudicated on the Employer/Carrier’s denial of compensability in light of the Claimant’s argument that Employer/Carrier were estopped from same pursuant to F.S. 440.192(8) and F.S. 440.20(4). Under section

certificates need to be produced along with and “Funeral benefits were already paid.” On the Pretrial Stipulation filed on August 27, 2021, the Employer/Carrier initially raised a major contributing cause (MCC) defense to compensability of the Claimant’s death, while the Claimant properly raised their F.S. 440.192(8) and F.S. 440.20(4) 120-day estoppel arguments in response.

440.20(4), an Employer/Carrier is precluded

The Claimant argued that the Employer/

from denying compensability if they wait more

Carrier’s payment of funeral expenses on

than 120 days after the provision of benefits,

August 14, 2019 constituted an acceptance

while under 440.192(8), it is precluded from

of the compensability of the claim and thus,

denying compensability if they wait more

the Employer/Carrier was estopped from

than 120 days from receipt of a Petition for

denying compensability under the 120-day

Benefits. Both provisions apply unless the

rule. Since the first denial from the Employer/ IN THE

NOW | 7

Carrier was raised on the August 27, 2021 Pretrial Stipulation, the claimant argued it had been more than 2 years after the payment of funeral expenses, and 129 days after the receipt of the Petition for Benefits. The Employer/Carrier initially argued that funeral expenses are not “benefits” for purposes of triggering the 120-day rule. However, JCC Clark rejected the Employer/ Carrier’s argument and found same disingenuous, reasoning that if the provision of medical treatment can trigger the 120day rule, then so can the payment of funeral expenses. He equated the payment of funeral expenses to the payment of medical

treatment, medical transportation, or durable medical equipment. JCC Clark found ultimately no evidence the MCC defense was raised within 120 days from this payment, or within the 120 days after the filing of the Petition for Benefits The Employer/Carrier’s main argument in support of their MCC defense was the Collier County Medical Examiner’s Report, which had not been completed until June 30, 2020, and which established material facts relevant to the issue of compensability that could not have been discovered through reasonable investigation within the 120-day period. JCC Clark found that the report contained facts that

would help determine whether the Claimant’s death arose out of his employment. He also agreed that report did not exist, and was not discoverable, within 120 days of the date the funeral expenses were paid (first provision of benefits). However, section 440.192(8) gives rise to a new 120-day period, as the Employer/ Carrier’s receipt of a Petition for Benefits is treated the same as the initial provision of benefits. This placed a “renewed” burden on the Employer/Carrier to pay or deny the claim within 120-days. JCC Clark found that the Medical Examiner’s Report, which was not discoverable within 120-days of the initial provision of benefits (payment of funeral expenses), was discoverable at the time of the filing of the April 21, 2021 Petitions for Benefits and in the Employer/Carrier’s possession on May 27, 2021. As such, the Employer/Carrier did not have the argument that there were “material facts relevant to the issue of compensability” which were undiscoverable within the 120day period subsequent to April 21, 2021. Based upon the foregoing, JCC Clark found that the Employer/Carrier failed to deny compensability within 120 days from receipt of the PFBs, and was thus estopped from denying compensability.

8 | IN THE

NOW

Howard v. J.E. Nelson Construction OJCC Case No. 15-010793FJC (FL.Off.Judge. Comp.Cl. March 8, 2022)

KK TAKEAWAY: The term “furnish” in Florida Statute 440.13(2) means something more than to simply authorize, or agree to provide.

KK TAKEAWAY: The scheduling of an appointment is an inherent requirement of furnishing care when a claimant requests the authorization and scheduling of an appointment with a physician.

KK TAKEAWAY: A billing dispute between a carrier and doctor’s office that precludes the scheduling of an appointment at the request of a claimant cannot be used as a defense to providing, or delaying to provide, the appointment.

BACKGROUND: On March 8, 2022, JCC Clark issued a Final Compensation Order regarding the Claimant’s request for continuing authorization of, and an appointment to be rescheduled with, Dr. Michael Novak. The Employer/Carrier raised the following defenses: “[c]arrier has timely provided any and all medical treatment medically necessary and causally related and as required under Chapter 440 as requested by the authorized providers; Dr. Novak remains authorized.”

IN THE

NOW | 9

By way of background, the Claimant had been treating with Dr. Novak for compensable injuries since 2015. The most recent medical notes indicate that Dr. Novak administered Botox injections into the Claimant’s lower extremities on April 1, 2021. He received this method of treatment with Dr. Novak every 3-6 months for the past several years, but there was no evidence of a follow-up visit subsequent to April 1, 2021. Upon receiving the at issue Petition for Benefits filed on August 16, 2021, the adjuster prepared and filed a Response on August 26, 2021. The response indicated that the Carrier had approved the requested benefits, that Dr. Novak remained authorized, and that the carrier would request an appointment date from Dr. Novak’s office and send out an appointment letter. It was discovered that prior to the filing of the Petition for Benefits, the adjuster attempted to contact Dr. Novak’s office to schedule an appointment, but the doctor declined. It was not until December 20, 2021 when the carrier made a second attempt to schedule an appointment with Dr. Novak. The doctor’s office returned the adjuster’s call describing “an issue with a balance” for past services rendered to the Claimant. The adjuster then called Dr. Novak’s office back and left a message instructing the doctor’s office to contact the carrier’s cost containment department to resolve the billing issue. The next and final contact between the carrier and doctor’s office was on January 5, 2022, when the adjuster left a voicemail. At the outset of the hearing, the Employer/ Carrier raised a jurisdictional issue of justiciability in light of stipulation that Dr. 10 | IN THE

NOW

Novak remained authorized to treat the Claimant. It argued that the JCC would have no jurisdiction to enter an order requiring them to do anything else regarding the issue. The Claimant asserted that the Employer/ Carrier had not actually furnished the benefits requested as an appointment with Dr. Novak had not been scheduled. The Employer/Carrier countered this argument, asserting that Dr. Novak’s office had declined to schedule an appointment with the Claimant due to some unexplained dispute with the carrier over bills for services rendered earlier in this claim. It argued that a JCC had no authority to resolve billing disputes between carriers and authorized health care providers, which is under the purview of the Florida Department of Financial Services. The Claimant contended that the foregoing placed him in a difficult position, as he was not receiving medical care for his compensable injuries and the physician authorized by the Employer/Carrier had refused to treat him due to the Employer/Carrier’s failure to take appropriate steps to resolve the situation. The Employer/Carrier dismissed this argument asserting that their claims department had done all they could do, and the billing issue was being addressed. The adjuster had been helpless in resolving the billing dispute and the carrier’s “hands [were] tied.” Thus, whatever had been keeping the Claimant from seeing Dr. Novak was beyond the jurisdiction of a JCC and the Claimant’s request must be dismissed.

not be able to enforce the terms of his own order. However, he disagreed with the Employer/Carrier’s argument that all of the benefits sought in the Petition for Benefits had been provided. The text of Florida Statute 440.13(2) provides “the employer shall furnish to the employee such medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require.” The term “furnish” is not defined in the statute, but based upon its plain language, JCC Clark found that it means “something more than to simply authorize, or agree to provide.” JCC Clark found that simply replying “Dr. Novak remains authorized” in the Response to Petition for Benefits is not “furnishing” medical care. While JCC Clark could not find case law directly on point, he compared the scheduling of a medical appointment to furnishing transportation to a medical appointment. He noted that transportation to medical appointments does not, itself, have to be independently medically necessary.

The scheduling of an appointment is certainly not medically necessary, but it certainly is an inherent requirement of furnishing care. Furthermore, the Employer/Carrier’s argument that it could have not done more than it had was found to be disingenuous. The carrier’s responsibility is to furnish medical care to the Claimant, notwithstanding a billing dispute, and the two (2) telephone calls/ voicemail message within a six (6) months period was “patently inadequate.” Based upon the foregoing, JCC Clark granted the claim for the scheduling of an appointment with Dr. Novak. The Employer/Carrier was ordered to furnish the claimant with an appointment to see Dr. Novak at the doctor’s earliest availability. In the event Dr. Novak declined to treat the claimant, the Employer/ Carrier was ordered to authorize and furnish care with an alternative neurologist in Lee County or within reasonable distance from Claimant’s home.

JCC Clark agreed with the Employer/Carrier that he could not order the carrier to pay outstanding medical bills and that he would IN THE

NOW | 11

• An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. • Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin. • An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin. • An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion. • An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national

Employment Law Update

origin. • Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,

By Angelo M. Filippi Partner, Kelley Kronenberg

neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin. Some of the distinctions between the categories are

Amendment to Florida Civil Rights Act Under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Florida employers are prohibited from discrimination

subjective and/or subtle, which can create uncertainty when training on HR employment policies or diversity issues is contemplated. HB 7 states that it is not

against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or

unlawful to discuss the enumerated concepts as part

marital status. On April 22, 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 7 (“HB 7”),

of a course of training, as long as the training is “given

which will become effective on July 1, 2022. HB 7 amends the FCRA, by adding a new category of employer

in an objective manner without endorsement of

actions that constitute “unlawful employment practices.”

the concepts.” How courts will treat this distinction

The additional “unlawful employment practices” added to the Florida Civil Rights Act center around workplace training, pertaining to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”). The law limits what can be taught in such training programs and how it can be taught. HB 7 states that it is an unlawful employment practice to subject any individual, as a condition of employment, to “training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe” certain enumerated “concepts.” The concepts are:

between discussing the concepts objectively and discussing them in a way that endorses the concepts remains to be seen. The first lawsuit challenging the legislation has been filed in federal court. The lawsuit argues that HB 7 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that it is so vague that it fails to put a reasonable

• Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race,

person on notice of what is prohibited. We will

color, sex, or national origin.

keep our clients advised as the law is implemented

• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or

should carefully review their existing DEI policies for

oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

compliance.

12 | IN THE

NOW

starting on July 1, 2022. In the meantime, employers

IN THE

NOW | 13

Ban The Box Law The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act(“FCA”), became effective on December 20, 2021. The law prohibits certain federal employers and contractors from requiring a job applicant to disclose his or her criminal background on a job application or during an interview prior to a conditional job offer being extended. The FCA applies to federal civilian and defense contractors. Federal contractors are businesses

MEET THE

CONTRIBUTORS

or organizations that enter into a contractual agreement with any department or agency of the United States Government to perform a specific job, supply labor and/or materials, or for the sale of products and services. Prudent federal employers, contractors, and human resources professionals should carefully examine their job applications, job postings, and interviewing policies to ensure compliance with this new federal law. Under the FCA, federal contractors cannot ask about arrests, indictments, formal criminal charges, sentencing, or sealed or expunged records on an application form or during the interview process. There are some limited exceptions to the FCA.

Florida Reporting Requirement Change

Joshua T. Higgins, Esq. Editor and Business Unit Leader/Partner Email Joshua T. Higgins

Joshua Higgins is a Business Unit Leader and Partner

of Kelley Kronenberg designated as the host for the

Effective October 1, 2021, Florida employers were required to report newly retained independent

at Kelley Kronenberg where he focuses his practice

meetings in South Florida, and he is the legal advisor

contractors in the same manner as they report new employees to the Florida Department of Revenue’s

on Workers’ Compensation defense. He has previous

to the Safety Alliance for Excellence (SAFE) since its

State Directory of New Hires. The law applies to Florida businesses that have paid an independent

experience handling employment law matters,

inception. He assists his clients daily in all aspects of

OSHA, Police Professional Litigation, Correctional

claims handling, both prior to and after litigation has

Healthcare, and Civil Rights claims.

begun, and has handled complex matters through

The team that Joshua leads comprises of nine (9)

trial on numerous occasions, with a high percentage

contractor $600 or more in a calendar year. The information must be submitted within 20 days after their first payment to the independent contractor or the date on which the business and independent contractor entered the contract, whichever is earlier. Previously, the law only required that employers report newly hired employees to the Department, while

people (attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants),

of success.

reporting independent contractors was optional.

which collectively have over 90 years’ experience

Joshua is a popular and frequent writer and presenter

handling workers’ compensation matters in Florida.

on various workers’ compensation issues, both in

Joshua handles workers’ compensation claims for a

Florida and on a national level. For his success and

wide array of industries, for a clientele that ranges

reputation, he has been named a Florida Super

from multi-billion companies to small employers.

Lawyers Rising star for 2020 and 2021 (bestowed on

Section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code);

One of the primary industries Joshua handles

less than 2.5% of attorneys in Florida), was named a

the date services for payment were first

workers’ compensation claims for is the construction

performed by the individual; and the name,

industry. He represents general contractors and

address, and employer identification number

subcontractors of all sizes, and is enmeshed in the

of the service recipient.

construction industry of South Florida. He is an

To comply with the law, employers must report the following: the independent contractor’s name; address; Social Security number (or other identifying number assigned under

The information must be submitted on the Florida New Hire Reporting Center website within twenty days after the first payment to the independent contractor, or the date the business and independent contractor entered into contract, whichever is earlier. 14 | IN THE

NOW

active member of the Construction Association of South Florida (CASF), where he has been on the Young Leaders Committee for several years (and the firm is the legal advisor to), he is involved in the

2020 and 2021 Top Lawyer in workers’ compensation by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated (one of only two defense attorneys on the list), and was named a 2022 Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch by U.S. News & World Report. Joshua is also rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, based upon peer reviews, which indicates that he has achieved the highest professional and ethical standards and is the

Associated General Contractors (AGC), for which he

highest rating a lawyer can receive.

was instrumental in having the Fort Lauderdale office

Prior to joining the firm, Joshua worked as an IN THE

NOW | 15

Assistant State Attorney at the State Attorney’s

summer fellow for the Florida Bar Foundation, which

Office, 17th Judicial Circuit, in both the felony trial unit

resulted in him working at Coast to Coast Legal Aid of

and county court division. While there, Joshua tried

South Florida doing foreclosure defense for indigent

more than 30 bench trials and 22 jury trials, with his

elderly citizens.

last trial featured on local Fox news.

Prior to entering law school, Joshua obtained his

During law school at Nova Southeastern University,

undergraduate degree magna cum laude from the

Joshua served for two years as the Chairperson of

State University of New York at Buffalo, where he

Administration for the Moot Court Honor Society,

was selected for induction into the Phi Beta Kappa

a Staff Member for the Inter-American Center for

Society, received English Departmental Honors, and

Human Rights, and the Secretary for the National

was listed in Who’s Who Among American College

Security and Law Society. He received a perfect

Students. Additionally, Joshua was chosen as a

score from the Chief Justice in the first round of the

Renaissance Scholar, an award bestowed on less than

ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition, and

4% of graduates that year (only 82 students out of a

placed in the top 8 out of more than 125 students in

class size of more than 2500), for those exhibiting

the Feinrider Moot Court Competition. Further, Joshua

scholarly excellence in at least two widely disparate

was one of 40 law students selected nationwide as a

areas of study.

Angelo M. Filippi Partner Email Angelo Filippi

Angelo Filippi is a Partner with 35 years of experience

In addition, what sets Angelo apart is of the number

in Labor and Employment Law. Angelo has one

of areas that he is conversant in, including ERISA,

of a kind expert industry knowledge due to his

ACA, and regulatory issues.

years of experience. This allows him to excel at risk

Angelo seeks referrals from senior level human

assessment. Angelo knows which questions to ask first and quickly get to the root of your issue saving you, the client, money. I can tell you within the first 20 mins of hearing your facts – whether or not you are in big trouble, little trouble, or none at all. Angelo understands the interests of government agencies regarding issues relating to specific industries including, construction, healthcare, and

resources, CEO, and In-house General Counsels. Prior to entering private practice, Angelo was responsible for the EEOC’s litigation program in Florida as Regional Counsel. He is a popular and frequent lecturer at seminars for employers, management

groups,

and

human

resource

professionals.

hospitality as it pertains to wage and hour laws, health, and safety issues.

Brandon T. Haas, Esq. Associate Attorney Email Brandon Haas

Brandon Haas is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg

Brandon received his Bachelor of Science degree

where he assists in handling matters related to

from the University of Central Florida and went on

Workers’ Compensation.

to earn his Juris Doctor degree, summa cum laude,

Brandon Haas is an Attorney in the firm’s Fort Lauderdale office where he assists in handling matters related to Workers’ Compensation.

from Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law where he regularly made the Dean’s List and was both a Junior Associate and Executive Editor for Nova Law Review. While in law school,

Prior to joining the firm, he gained experience in

he was a Legal Intern for the Broward County

Insurance Defense Litigation while working as a

Environmental and Consumer Protection Division

Law Clerk for a boutique Fort Lauderdale firm.

and served as a Teaching Assistant.

16 | IN THE

NOW

IN THE

NOW | 17

HELPING YOU

STAY AHEAD BLOGS Business Workplace Health & Safety Checklist: What Should Employers Expect with New Delta Variant Cases Rising? By: Meg Bentley. As the number of COVID-19 cases declined last spring, Illinois businesses reopened their doors […]

WEBINARS COVID-19 in 2021 Kelley Kronenberg Partners Adam Kemper and Joshua Higgins present COVID-19 in 2021 with Principal Partner/ Chief Financial Officer, Heath Eskalyo as the moderator. The webinar, COVID-19 in 2021, provides updates on the latest applicable workplace guidelines and for practice.

CLICK TO WATCH

CLICK TO READ MORE

Mental Health in the Workplace – Post Pandemic Panic By: Amy Siegel Oran Florida workers’ compensation law does not cover purely psychological trauma; the emotional condition must be brought […]

PUBLICATIONS Don’t Be A Discovery Dinosaur HR Florida Newswire

Telecommuting Employees and the Potential for Workers’ Compensation Claims

Amy Siegel Oran

HR Florida Newswire

CLICK TO READ MORE CLICK TO READ MORE

CLICK TO READ MORE

Movies Speak to Me in Legalese By: Amy Siegel Oran. We all have our favorite movies, a top-five list of films you’ve seen so many times you […] CLICK TO READ MORE

20 Years of Wisdom in 5 Bullets: Tips for Law Graduates By: Amy Siegel Oran. On this day, 20 years ago, I was worrying about law school finals and the upcoming […]

Guest column: Florida’s minimum wage increase raises workers’ compensation cost

What The Telecommuting Trend Could Mean for Florida Workers’ Comp Claims

Tampa Bay Business Journal

Insurance Journal

Amy Siegel Oran

Indira Marin

CLICK TO READ MORE

6 Key Points to Defend, Manage, and Settle Catastrophic Claims By Amy Siegel Oran I recently had the pleasure of presenting on the topic of defending, managing, […] CLICK TO READ MORE

18 | IN THE

NOW

Indira Marin

CLICK TO READ MORE

Yes, employees required to get vaccinated for COVID-19 can file a workers’ compensation claim for vaccine adverse effects

Does Workers’ Comp Cover an Employee’s Reaction to a COVID-19 Vaccine?

Verify

SHRM

Joshua Higgins

CLICK TO READ MORE

IN THE

NOW | 19

AWARDS AND

ACCOLADES FIRM AWARDS

WC ATTORNEY AWARDS

Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:

2021

Fastest-Growing Private Companies in America

Best Midsize Law Firms To Work For

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating

Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch

Karen M. Gilmartin, Raymond L. Grant, Joshua T. Higgins, Steven L. Scharf, Amy Siegel Oran

Joshua T. Higgins Amy Siegel Oran

Florida Super Lawyers “Rising Stars”

South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers”

Joshua T. Higgins

Amy Siegel Oran Karen Gilmartin

Illinois Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Julianna Walo Executive Women of the Palm Beaches Foundation Women in Leadership Amy Siegel Oran

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Best Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer” Joshua T. Higgins

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Named as a “Business of the Year” and “Top 100 Private Companies”

Best Multi-Practice Business Law Firm – USA

2021 “Diversity Team” winner

WOMEN IN THE L AW Best Lawyers “Women in the Law”

Girl Scouts of Southeast Florida, Emerald Award, “Risk Taker” Amy Siegel Oran

Amy Siegel Oran 20 | IN THE

NOW

IN THE

NOW | 21

OUR

OFFICES CHICAGO

A Firm Built on Relationships KELLEY KRONENBERG IS A MULTI-PRACTICE BUSINESS LAW FIRM.

NEW YORK NEW JERSEY

with over

400

Employees

more than

200 Attorneys

the convenience of

Locations

ATLANTA JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA ORLANDO

WEST PALM BEACH TALLAHASSEE FORT LAUDERDALE

OFFICES

NEW ORLEANS

TAMPA MIAMI LAKES NAPLES

Founded in 1980, the firm is one of the fastest-growing law firms in Florida and amongst the largest in the U.S. The firm serves all types and sizes of public and private companies, including small businesses and individuals nationwide.

MIAMI

FORT LAUDERDALE

TAMPA

NAPLES

JACKSONVILLE

MIAMI

ORLANDO

CHICAGO

DAYTONA

WEST PALM BEACH

NEW ORLEANS

TALLAHASSEE

NEW YORK CITY

10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970

1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 503-0850

1475 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 275 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 684-5956

1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697

20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1207 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450

201 St. Charles Ave, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (732) 547-7907

1570 Shadowlawn Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 990-6490

161 N. Clark Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 216-8828

6267 Old Water Road, Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301

10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (954) 370-9970

1112 Riverside Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32117 Phone: (754) 888-5437

One Liberty Plaza 165 Broadway 23rd Floor, Suite 2374 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (800) 484-4381

BY APPOINTMENT ONLY NEW JERSEY

51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (908) 403-8174

ATLANTA

1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972

IN THE

NOW | 23