Fly & Form, Inc. v. Marquez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fly & Form, Inc. v. Marquez

19 So. 3d 403, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12827, 2009 WL 2767206

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 2009

Docket3D09-43

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 So. 3d 403 (Fly & Form, Inc. v. Marquez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fly & Form, Inc. v. Marquez, 19 So. 3d 403, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12827, 2009 WL 2767206 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

RAMIREZ, C.J.

Fly & Form, Inc. appeals the trial court’s entry final judgment in which the court denied Fly & Form’s motion for summary judgment and granted appellee Marlon Marquez’s cross-motion for summary judgment. We reverse because Fly & Form, as the employer, was entitled to the exclusivity defense as set forth in Florida’s workers’ compensation statute.

This appeal arises out of a personal injury suit brought by Marquez as a result of injuries he sustained while employed with Fly & Form. Following the accident, Marquez received workers’ compensation benefits as well as temporary disability *404 payments, including medical bills and indemnity benefits. Fly & Form later learned that Marquez had used a fake social security number on his employment application and W-4 form. Fly & Form then denied further workers’ compensation benefits. Marquez filed suit, and Fly & Form asserted that it was immune from tort liability, pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A few months later, workers’ compensation benefits resumed, and the outstanding temporary disability benefits were paid. Because Marquez had also reached maximum medical improvement, he was paid for bodily impairment and the remaining medical bills.

Fly <& Form moved for summary judgment based on the exclusivity of workers’ compensation benefits and its immunity from suit as Marquez’s employer. We conclude that the trial court erred when it denied Fly & Form’s motion for summary judgment. Fly & Form was not estopped from asserting the exclusivity defense of the workers’ compensation statute, even though it had denied Marquez further workers’ compensation benefits. See Coca-Cola Enters., Inc. v. Montiel, 985 So.2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that Coca-Cola was not entitled to the exclusivity defense of the workers’ compensation statute because the employer had denied the employee workers’ compensation benefits). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s final judgment and remand for entry of summary judgment in Fly & Form’s favor.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RAMIREZ, C.J.

Fly & Form, Inc. appeals the trial court’s entry final judgment in which the court denied Fly & Form’s motion for summary judgment and granted appellee Marlon Marquez’s cross-motion for summary judgment. We reverse because Fly & Form, as the employer, was entitled to the exclusivity defense as set forth in Florida’s workers’ compensation statute.

This appeal arises out of a personal injury suit brought by Marquez as a result of injuries he sustained while employed with Fly & Form. Following the accident, Marquez received workers’ compensation benefits as well as temporary disability *404 payments, including medical bills and indemnity benefits. Fly & Form later learned that Marquez had used a fake social security number on his employment application and W-4 form. Fly & Form then denied further workers’ compensation benefits. Marquez filed suit, and Fly & Form asserted that it was immune from tort liability, pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A few months later, workers’ compensation benefits resumed, and the outstanding temporary disability benefits were paid. Because Marquez had also reached maximum medical improvement, he was paid for bodily impairment and the remaining medical bills.

Fly <& Form moved for summary judgment based on the exclusivity of workers’ compensation benefits and its immunity from suit as Marquez’s employer. We conclude that the trial court erred when it denied Fly & Form’s motion for summary judgment. Fly & Form was not estopped from asserting the exclusivity defense of the workers’ compensation statute, even though it had denied Marquez further workers’ compensation benefits. See Coca-Cola Enters., Inc. v. Montiel, 985 So.2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that Coca-Cola was not entitled to the exclusivity defense of the workers’ compensation statute because the employer had denied the employee workers’ compensation benefits). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s final judgment and remand for entry of summary judgment in Fly & Form’s favor.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 So. 3d 403, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12827, 2009 WL 2767206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fly-form-inc-v-marquez-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack