Kelley Kronenberg - In the Know – Workers’ Compensation - April/May 2022 by Kelley Kronenberg

IN THE

APRIL/MAY 2022

NOW

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION EDITION

IN THIS ISSUE: First DCA Clarifies Compensability Confusion

EDITOR’S LETTER

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

Never say never because limits, like fears, are often just illusions.

–Michael Jordan

Recently I settled a claim of moderate complexity,

The workers’ compensation system is unique in

where subsequent to settlement Opposing

that it is supposed to be a self-executing system,

Counsel sent correspondence thanking the

but it does support staunch advocacy as well. I

adjuster and myself for the way we handled the

think that the nature of our work, and the volume

claim, in ensuring that appropriate benefits were

of work we all have, sometimes can allow us to

paid or authorized for the Claimant, while also

view claims in the abstract, and forget that we

contesting various benefits in good faith with a

can have a positive impact on both an injured

sound legal basis. Soon thereafter, the Employer

worker and on an employer, even simultaneously

also praised the adjuster and myself for the

on the same claim.

manner in which he handled the claim and got it resolved.

TABLE OF

CONTENTS Silberberg v. Palm Beach County School Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 No. 1D20-75, 2022 WL 480740 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

Soya v. Health First, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12 No. 1D21-59, 2022 WL 620619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

Robey v. BayCare Health Systems – St. Anthony’s Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12 OJCC Case No. 21-020195RLY (FL.Off.Judge.Comp.Cl. March 31, 2022)

COMPLIMENTARY CEU CREDITS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! . . . . . . . . . . . 12-14 CONTRIBUTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-17 HELPING YOU STAY AHEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21 FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23

4 | IN THE

NOW

Silberberg v. Palm Beach County School Board No. 1D20-75 2022 WL 480740 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

KK TAKEAWAY: Any idiopathic condition, including the onset of a physiological response that is idiosyncratic to the employee—can be a personal risk that triggers the increased hazard test, provided there is evidence that it played a role in the fall or ensuing injury.

KK TAKEAWAY: Valcourt-Williams was a narrow trip-and-fall during a comfort break decision that was never meant to require the increased hazard test to apply whenever an employee falls at work during a normal everyday activity.

KK TAKEAWAY: There is no meaningful difference between a pre-existing condition and an idiopathic condition for the purpose of triggering the “increased hazard” test.

KK TAKEAWAY: Outside the context of a comfort break, in the presence of an idiopathic condition that triggers the “increased hazard” test, rather than commonplaceness of the work activity or condition that led to an accident.

KK TAKEAWAY: The Employee/Claimant appealed a workers’ compensation order where the JCC denied the Claimant’s claim for compensability. IN THE

NOW | 5

BACKGROUND:

of the Claimant’s employment, so it was to

The Employee/Claimant appealed a workers’ compensation order where the JCC denied the Claimant’s claim for compensability.

be determined whether the injury arose out

By way of background, the Claimant sustained an injury due to a fall in the classroom in which he worked. He claimed he was sitting in his rolling chair at his desk for five (5) minutes or less. When he stood up from his chair and attempted to take a step, he had no feeling in his leg, which gave way and caused him to fall on the floor. As a result, he fractured his left femur.

of the Claimant’s work. At the Final Hearing, the JCC found that the sitting and standing described by the claimant were ‘‘routine movements to which the Claimant would normally be exposed in his nonemployment life as well, so the risk of the Claimant’s leg going numb existed whether at home, at work, or anywhere else.” The JCC followed the 1st DCA’s en banc decision in Sedgwick CMS v. ValcourtWilliams, concluding that there was no

Dr. Jose Zuniga, the Employer/Carrier Independent Medical Examiner (IME), opined that the numbness experienced by the Claimant while sitting just prior to the fall “did not seem related to any major medical illness as he did not have vascular disease, diabetes, sciatic nerve injury, or severe lower lumbar disc disease.” He concluded that it was likely a compression of the nerves in the leg a due to a venous insufficiency in conjunction with sitting in one position. He also added that the Claimant’s leg numbness could have happened at any time whether at work or at home, and that it would probably occur again if he were to sit in one position for a prolonged period of time.

evidence that the “physical surroundings

The Claimant IME Dr. Robert Simon agreed with Dr. Zuniga that the Claimant likely experienced a compressed nerve and vasculature that led to the leg numbness. He also agreed that it is very common occurrence and could happen anywhere.

The JCC ultimately denied compensability

In her Final Compensation Order, the JCC noted that there was no dispute that the injury occurred during the course and scope

phrases “arising out of” and “in the course of

6 | IN THE

NOW

on the job in any way contributed to the risk of an injury more than they would have in nonemployment life.” By doing so, the JCC rejected the Claimant’s assertion that his injury was compensable simply because it occurred at work, and rejected his reliance on Caputo v. ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, which he used to support his argument that there is “1) a presumption in favor of a compensable accident when an injury occurs at work and there is no pre-existing condition; and 2) that only a pre-existing condition (and not an idiopathic condition) can be a competing cause that could trigger the increased hazard inquiry applied by the JCC.” of the fall and resulting injury, ruling that the Claimant’s injury did not arise out of his work as a teacher, despite occurring while performing his work duties at work.

appeal, the 1st DCA initially analyzed the employment” stating that the phrases were to be used conjunctively. The words “arising

out of” refer to the origin of the cause of the

direct impact case, causation is not difficult

accident, while the words “in the course of

to determine, as there is only one cause

employment” refer to the time, place, and

of an accident. This can be seen in cases

circumstances under which the accident

involving a machinery accident, explosion,

occurs. In short, for an injury to arise out of

or roof collapse. In this type of accident, the

work, there must be a causal connection

worker is exposed to an obvious employer

between the employment and the injury. The

provided risk (the equipment or surrounding

legislature soon recognized that that there

environment), which directly impacts the

may be numerous causes leading to an injury,

body of a worker. There is a clear direct link

so an amendment was included to require a

present between the work and injury, and

showing that the employment constitutes

“any exertion” for work in this situation is

the Major Contributing Cause (MCC) of the

enough to establish work causation. Thus,

accident or injury for an injury to “arise out

when there is no exertion in furtherance of

of” work.

the work, such as when the risk comes from

In a classic industrial accident, also called a

personal factors, there is no compensability. IN THE

NOW | 7

Unlike in a direct impact case, work causation is not as easy to establish when an accident is caused or in part caused by an idiopathic condition. In this situation, “some aspect of the employee’s personal condition unexpectedly becomes, manifests, or interacts with his work activity while he is performing his normal job duties.” It must be ensured that the employer bears the industry risk of accidents and not those flowing from a worker’s own “idiosyncratic physiological responses to everyday condition.” This need to account for an overlap of personal and work risks were the driving force behind the application of the “increased hazard” test to be utilized when a preexisting or idiopathic condition is present. This test considers whether the injury “fortuitously occurred” at work, but “could have been triggered at any time” by a normal, everyday movement 8 | IN THE

NOW

outside of work. Under this analysis, the court must consider whether it is the employment that increased the risk of an accident or injury’s occurrence. The court then discussed Caputo and Valcourt-Williams, the two cases analyzed in the JCC’s Final Compensation Order. In Caputo, the claimant was engaged in a work activity, sawing shelves, and there was no evidence to show any non-work explanation or contribution to the fall. Since the claimant could not recall the events of the accident, it was unclear whether the fall resulted from an onset of a personal condition, or some external force or factor from the work environment. The court in Caputo ruled that there was enough of causal connection between the work and the accident to support compensability as the claimant had

fallen while doing something for work, at work, “regardless of any level of exertion,” and there was no “other ascertainable cause.” It was the absence of evidence of any personal condition that exonerated the claimant from meeting the “any exertion” test. The accident and injury were found to have arisen from the work as work was the only proven cause. As for Valcourt-Williams, the Court found there to be a “misunderstanding with regard to its scope and significance.”

Valcourt-

Williams involved an average trip-and-fall accident at work that happened to have occurred during a comfort break (the claimant tripped over her own dog). It was a narrow trip and fall during a comfort break decision, and was never meant to require the increased hazard to apply whenever an employee falls at work during a normal everyday activity such as walking or sitting. In the context of a comfort break, there had to be some way to distinguish between work as a possible cause versus a personal activity or condition as the other possible cause. The “increased hazard” test was the only way to do so, as there would be no way to ascertain whether “any exertion” for work occurred during a comfort break. The court ultimately found that outside the context of a comfort break, it the presence of an idiopathic condition that triggers the “increased hazard” test, rather than “commonplaceness of the work activity or condition that caused the fall.” The claimant argued that the JCC should have applied the “any exertion” test due to the assumption that the risk of his leg falling asleep was not a personal condition that would require the increased hazard analysis.

The court found that the claimant narrowly construed the personal risk requirement to include only a diagnosed or symptomatic pre-existing medical condition, and it was clear he did not consider a foot falling asleep as this type of condition. The court rejected this argument and found that there was no meaningful difference between a “preexisting condition” and an idiopathic condition for the purpose of triggering the “increased hazard” test in a fall case. It could be anything such as dizziness, labyrinthitis, epilepsy, or external failure of equipment designed to assist with an idiopathic condition (leg brace).” Any idiopathic condition, including the “onset of a physiological response that is idiosyncratic to the employee—can be a personal risk that triggers the increased hazard test, provided there is evidence that it played a role in the fall or ensuing injury.” The court here concluded that it was an idiopathic condition that contributed to the claimant’s fall. The fall occurred due to an unexpected onset of numbness in his leg from sitting at work. The claimant brought to work his “inherently personal physiological tendency that his leg would go numb” while he sat or stood. The leg numbness could have happened at anytime, anywhere, but it “fortuitously” occurred during work and caused the fall. This idiopathy required the application of the “increased hazard” test to determine whether the claimant sitting for work was the MCC of his fall/injury. This test was applied by the JCC to assess whether the claimant’s work was the cause of his fall by considering whether the nature of his sitting required more than the “normal exertion associated with sitting in non-work IN THE

NOW | 9

life.” However, the claimant did not present any evidence that he was required to sit for a prolonged period of time, or that the chair he used was prone to causing a leg to fall asleep. There was no evidence of a work-related need for the claimant to suddenly arise from his chair without focusing on his balance.

KK TAKEAWAY: The phrase “work performed” is not to be construed to include only actual performance of primary job duties by an employee. Walking through an employer’s building while leaving work is an unavoidable part of her job.

Rather, he was sitting in a normal manner, for

BACKGROUND:

a normal amount of time, in a normal chair, on

The Claimant, a massage therapist, was leaving for work on the date in question when she was injured. She exited the massage room, walked at a normal pace across a carpeted floor in the massage waiting room that led to the locker room entrance, and fell onto the door that separated the waiting room and locker room. At the time of the fall, she was wearing rubber soled shoes and was carrying some non-work-related items including a purse, a teacup, and a small bag of homemade chocolates. The Claimant could not recall exactly how the fall happened. Additionally, the Employer/Carrier retained an engineer expert to inspect the flooring area, who found no abnormalities with its surface or configuration and noted that it was slip-resistant.

a flat surfaced floor, which was nothing more than an incidental trigger of the idiopathic response. Based upon the foregoing, the court affirmed the JCC’s conclusion that the claimant’s fall did not “arise out of” his work and was not a compensable accident.

Soya v. Health First, Inc. No. 1D21-59, 2022 WL 620619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

KK TAKEAWAY: Where an unexplained fall happens while a claimant is actively engaged in the duties of employment, and there is no other established basis of the fall (pre-existing condition or a dog), then the casual relationship between employment and the accident is met.

KK TAKEAWAY: The

increased

hazard

analysis

under

Valcourt-Williams applies only when there is a contributing cause outside of employment, such as the dog or a preexisting condition, not when a cause is entirely unknown. 10 | IN THE

NOW

The JCC denied compensability of the fall under the opinion in Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, tracking its language in reasoning that the Claimant’s injury did not arise out of her employment. In ValcourtWilliams, a “remote” employee was injured when she fell over her pet dog as she reached for coffee during a work break. The First DCA held that the injury did not arise out of work because the risk of falling over her pet dog in her kitchen while reaching for coffee existed in her non-employment life. The JCC noted that

“an accident is compensable under ValcourtWilliams only if the employment necessarily exposed the claimant to conditions that would substantially contribute to the risk of injury to which the claimant would not normally be exposed during her non-employment life.” The Claimant appealed the JCC order denying her claim for compensability of her injuries due to a fall at work. On appeal, the First DCA noted that the increased hazard analysis under ValcourtWilliams applies only when there is a contributing cause outside of employment, such as the dog. Thus, it was overbroard to apply this standard here as the cause of the Claimant’s fall was unknown. Where an accident’s cause is unknown, it is error to deny compensability on the ground that the accident could have happened elsewhere as this would overlook the language in section 440.10(2), which provides that compensation shall be payable irrespective of fault as

the cause for the injury, and overlook the rationale in Caputo v ABC Fine Wine & Spirits and Walker v Broadview Assisted Living. In Caputo and Walker, the court reasoned that where an unexplained fall happens while the claimant is actively engaged in the duties of employment, and there is no other established basis of the fall (pre-existing condition or a dog), then the casual relationship between employment and the accident is met (a claimant’s clumsiness is also covered). In the case at hand, there was no other established basis of the fall. The Employer/Carrier attempted to differentiate this case from Caputo and Walker, arguing that these “unexplained fall cases” were not truly unexplained, as they identify the injured worker as either “tripping” or “slipping” rather than simply falling. However, despite the use of these words, none of the accident descriptions identified an “incipient” cause of the accident, such a IN THE

NOW | 11

“tripping over” or “slipping on.” The injured workers were simply obligated to be present on the work site at the time of the respective accidents. The First DCA also rejected the Employer/ Carrier’s argument that the Claimant had not been “actively engaged” in work at the time of her work accident. It reasoned that walking through the Employer’s building while leaving work was an unavoidable part of her job. The phrase “work performed” is not to be construed to include only actual performance of primary job duties by an employee. To do so would allow employers to argue in such cases that work performed did not contribute to the injury, and hearings would then be required on this issue. This procedure would contravene the legislative intent for an efficient and selfexecuting workers’ compensation system ensuring prompt delivery of benefits.

12 | IN THE

NOW

Based upon the foregoing, the court reversed the JCC’s conclusion that the Claimant did not sustain a compensable work accident, and the case was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Robey v. BayCare Health Systems – St. Anthony’s Hospital OJCC Case No. 21-020195RLY (FL.Off.Judge. Comp.Cl. March 31, 2022)

KK TAKEAWAY: The “any exertion test,” where any exertion in furtherance of work meets the test of causation, is only applicable in the absence of proof of a preexisting condition or any other competing cause.

KK TAKEAWAY: The “increased hazard” analysis applies when there is a proof of a preexisting/idiopathic condition, and requires a showing of a work condition that substantially contributed to the risk of injury to which a claimant would not normally be exposed during non-employment life.

KK TAKEAWAY: Preexisting conditions including cerebral palsy, diabetic neuropathy, and a toe injury are conditions that could potentially trigger the “increased hazard” test.

BACKGROUND: On March 31, 2022, JCC Young issued a Final Compensation Order on the Claimant’s claim for compensability of a work accident that allegedly occurred on May 7, 2021. The Claimant was a fifty-seven (57) year old woman who was employed by the Insured as a registered nurse assigned to St. Anthony’s Hospital. On the alleged date of accident, the

is poured in place or precast, to be used for floor and wall treatments). The Claimant further testified to preexisting conditions including peripheral diabetic neuropathy, cerebral palsy, and a recent fractured toe injury that occurred at home. She said she never had any balance, walking, or nerve issues prior to the alleged date of accident, and further advised she had no prior issues with any of her reported preexisting conditions. On February 9, 2022, the Claimant underwent an Independent Medical Examination (IME) with Dr. Mohit Bansal. Dr. Bansal opined that the Claimant’s biggest issue was her balance, which was due to her personal medical condition of cerebral palsy, a condition that affects gait, balance, and the ability to walk. He also noted that the Claimant’s use of a walker post-accident was not a result of the alleged right knee injury as it would not affect weight bearing. He opined that the use of a walker post-accident could be due to her neuropathy, cerebral palsy, or prior toe fracture.

material, consisting of chips of marble, quartz,

The Claimant presented to Employer/Carrier IME Dr. Matthew Galloway on March 4, 2022, who opined that the three main causes of the Claimant’s fall were her preexisting cerebral palsy, diabetic neuropathy, and toe injury. JCC Young noted that although Dr. Bansal did not opine definitively regarding the Major Contributing Cause (MCC) of the Claimant’s fall, he did express an opinion that supported Dr. Galloway’s conclusion as to a basis for the Claimant’s foot feeling “stuck” due to her preexisting conditions.

granite, glass, or other suitable material that

JCC Young ultimately found that the Claimant

Claimant completed a 12-hour shift wearing her standard uniform and shoes described as scrubs and tennis shoes. While walking to the check-out area, her right foot stuck to the floor causing her to fall forward and strike her right knee on the floor. She sustained a fractured patella. She did not mention there was anything sticky or wet on the floor and admitted she was unsure how or why she fell. However, she did inform the adjuster that the floor was made of terrazzo (composite

IN THE

NOW | 13

had significant preexisting conditions, which were made known at her initial treatment on the date of the alleged accident when she reported her cerebral palsy. She cited to Silberberg v. Palm Beach County School Board, a recent 1st DCA case which sought to clear up the definition of “arising out of” and causation of a work injury depending on whether there was a non-work-related factor that contributed to an accident. Silberberg notes that if a non-work-related factor contributed to the accident, the claimant has to demonstrate that “the employment itself created the hazard” or “increased risk of the accident” for it to be deemed compensable. The Claimant argued that the “any exertion test” would be applicable in this case, where

any exertion in furtherance of work meets the test of causation. However, Silberberg ruled that the “any exertion test” is only applicable in the absence of proof of a preexisting condition or any other competing cause. JCC Young found that in the instant case, there were three separate idiopathic/ preexisting conditions that had been established by competent substantial evidence. Dr. Galloway addressed each condition explaining how each could contribute to the fall, and the Claimant IME agreed that the causes identified by Dr. Galloway were possible causes of the fall. Thus, Silberberg instructs that the increased hazard analysis is applicable and there must be a showing of a work condition that “substantially contributed to the risk of injury to which the claimant would not normally be exposed during non-employment life.” JCC Young found that the Claimant did not clearly identify any condition of work that substantially contributed to her risk of injury or that she faced some risk that she would not normally have encountered in non-employment life. Based upon same, the MCC of the Claimant’s fall was her preexisting medical condition and the claim for compensability of the accident was denied.

14 | IN THE

NOW

COMPLIMENTARY CEU CREDITS FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Our Workers’ Compensation attorneys are happy to present seminars to bring you and your teams up to speed. We cover many topics to assist you on claims handling and to keep you up-to-date on developments of the law. Please see our new and improved WC course list and let our firm know if your company is interested.

• This is Workers’ Comp - This is Workers’ Comp on Drugs (1HR) • Major Contributing Cause in Florida Workers’ Compensation (1HR) • FL Workers’ Compensation 101 (1HR) • FL Workers’ Compensation 101 (2HRS) • Catastrophic Claim Handling: Investigation, Management, Litigation & Settlement (1HR) • Proving and Disproving Compensability - From Definitions to Defenses (2HRS) • Burdens of Proof for Compensability in Workers Compensation Claims (1HR) • Establishing Compensability and the Exceptions Thereto (1HR) • FL Workers’ Compensation Deadlines & Timeframes (1HR) • Adjusting Depositions - Mastering the Art of Testifying (1HR) • Return to Work Policies Make Cents (1HR) • Accident Investigations (1HR) • 4 HR Law & Ethics Update (4HRS) • “Arising Out Of” & “Course and Scope - What, How, Why are JCC’s Analyzing Them Now (1HR) • Top Ten Workers’ Compensation Cases of 2020 (1HR) • Covid 19 - Workers’ Compensation Legal Issues and Strategies (1HR) • Covid 19 - A One Year Retrospective (1HR) • The Challenges of the One Time Change Statute (1HR) • Issues w/ Florida Claims Admin Statute (1HR) CLICK TO REGISTER Register to select a course and coordinate a date and time for one of our WC Courses! If you have questions or would like more information, please reach out to marketing@kelleykronenberg.com IN THE

NOW | 15

MEET THE

CONTRIBUTORS Associated General Contractors (AGC), for which he was instrumental in having the Fort Lauderdale

Joshua T. Higgins, Esq.

office of Kelley Kronenberg designated as the host

Editor and Business Unit Leader/Partner

for the meetings in South Florida, and he is the legal

Email Joshua T. Higgins

advisor to the Safety Alliance for Excellence (SAFE) since its inception. He assists his clients daily in all aspects of claims handling, both prior to and after litigation has begun, and has handled complex matters through trial on numerous occasions, with

Joshua Higgins is a Business Unit Leader and Partner at Kelley Kronenberg where he focuses his practice on Workers’ Compensation defense. He has previous experience handling employment law matters, OSHA, Police Professional Litigation, Correctional Healthcare, and Civil Rights claims.

a high percentage of success. Joshua is a popular and frequent writer and presenter on various workers’ compensation issues, both in Florida and on a national level. For his success and reputation, he has been named a Florida Super Lawyers Rising Star for 2020, 2021, and 2022

The team that Joshua leads comprises of nine (9)

(bestowed on less than 2.5% of attorneys in Florida),

people (attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants),

was named a 2020 and 2021 Top Lawyer in workers’

which collectively have over 90 years’ experience

compensation by Fort Lauderdale Illustrated (one

handling workers’ compensation matters in Florida.

of only two defense attorneys on the list), and was

Joshua handles workers’ compensation claims for a

named a 2022 Best Lawyers in America: Ones to

wide array of industries, for a clientele that ranges

Watch by U.S. News & World Report. Joshua is

from multi-billion companies to small employers.

also rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell,

One of the primary industries Joshua handles

based upon peer reviews, which indicates that he

workers’ compensation claims for is the construction

has achieved the highest professional and ethical

industry. He represents general contractors and

standards and is the highest rating a lawyer can

subcontractors of all sizes, and is enmeshed in the

receive.

construction industry of South Florida. He is an

Prior to joining the firm, Joshua worked as an

active member of the Construction Association of

Assistant State Attorney at the State Attorney’s

South Florida (CASF), where he has been on the

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

Young Leaders Committee for several years (and

unit and county court division. While there, Joshua

the firm is the legal advisor to), he is involved in the

tried more than 30 bench trials and 22 jury trials,

16 | IN THE

NOW

with his last trial featured on local Fox news.

Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida doing

During law school at Nova Southeastern University,

foreclosure defense for indigent elderly citizens.

Joshua served for two years as the Chairperson of

Prior to entering law school, Joshua obtained his

Administration for the Moot Court Honor Society,

undergraduate degree magna cum laude from the

a Staff Member for the Inter-American Center for

State University of New York at Buffalo, where he

Human Rights, and the Secretary for the National

was selected for induction into the Phi Beta Kappa

Security and Law Society. He received a perfect

Society, received English Departmental Honors, and

score from the Chief Justice in the first round of the

was listed in Who’s Who Among American College

ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition, and

Students. Additionally, Joshua was chosen as a

placed in the top 8 out of more than 125 students

Renaissance Scholar, an award bestowed on less

in the Feinrider Moot Court Competition. Further,

than 4% of graduates that year (only 82 students

Joshua was one of 40 law students selected

out of a class size of more than 2500), for those

nationwide as a summer fellow for the Florida

exhibiting scholarly excellence in at least two widely

Bar Foundation, which resulted in him working at

disparate areas of study.

Prior to joining the firm, he gained experience in

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

Insurance Defense Litigation while working as a Law Clerk for a boutique Fort Lauderdale firm. Brandon received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Central Florida and went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree, summa cum laude, from Nova Southeastern University Shepard

Brandon Haas is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg

Broad College of Law where he regularly made the

where he assists in handling matters related to

Dean’s List and was both a Junior Associate and

Workers’ Compensation.

Executive Editor for Nova Law Review. While in

Brandon Haas is an Attorney in the firm’s Fort

law school, he was a Legal Intern for the Broward

Lauderdale office where he assists in handling

County Environmental and Consumer Protection

matters related to Workers’ Compensation.

Division and served as a Teaching Assistant.

IN THE

NOW | 17

HELPING YOU

STAY AHEAD

BLOGS

A Time for Teaching I absolutely love what I do. For over twenty years now, I have defended the interests of businesses and their workers’ compensation carriers, and it never gets old.[…]

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

CLICK TO READ MORE

Hiring Choices Made Out of Desperation May Lead to Debacles Amy Siegel Oran. It is hard to pinpoint exactly why it is so difficult to find good employees these days; […] 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 […] CLICK TO READ MORE

18 | IN THE

NOW

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 […] 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

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

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

Indira Marin CLICK TO READ MORE

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

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 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

Best Midsize Law Firms To Work For

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Best Law Firms”

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

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

20 | IN THE

Fastest-Growing Private Companies in America

NOW

WC ATTORNEY AWARDS

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

Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer” Joshua T. Higgins

WOMEN IN THE LAW Best Lawyers “Women in the Law”

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

Amy Siegel Oran IN THE

NOW | 21

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

with over

400

Employees

more than

175 Attorneys

the convenience of

Locations

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.

OUR

OFFICES CHICAGO

NEW YORK NEW JERSEY

ATLANTA JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA ORLANDO

WEST PALM BEACH TALLAHASSEE FORT LAUDERDALE

OFFICES

NEW ORLEANS

TAMPA

NAPLES

MIAMI

CHICAGO

DAYTONA

FORT LAUDERDALE

JACKSONVILLE

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

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

MIAMI

NAPLES

NEW ORLEANS

NEW YORK

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

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

ORLANDO

TALLAHASSEE

TAMPA

WEST PALM BEACH

150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 216-8828

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

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

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

1421 Pine Ridge Road, Unit 120 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: (954) 370-9970

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

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

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

BY APPOINTMENT ONLY ATLANTA

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

NEW JERSEY

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

IN THE

NOW | 23