Protegrity v. Brehm

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2005 » Protegrity v. Brehm

Protegrity v. Brehm

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: Protegrity

Case Date: 02/07/2005

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005

PROTEGRITY SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. THERESA BREHM, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed February 11, 2005 Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, C. Vernon Mize, Senior Judge. Debra Potter Klauber, of Haliczer Pettis, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. Gus R. Benitez, of Benitez & Butcher, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. Case No. 5D03-3274

ORFINGER, J. Protegrity Services, Inc., the third party administrator for Theresa Brehm's workers' compensation carrier, appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss based on its claim of workers' compensation immunity. This Court has jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v). 1 Because we conclude Protegrity enjoys the same immunity as the employer and insurance carrier, we reverse the order on review.

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) provides, in part, that "[a]ppeals to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders are limited to those that .. . determine ... that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity[.]"

1

Theresa Brehm was injured in a work-related accident and underwent treatment for her injuries. Brehm sought authorization for a rhizotomy (a radio frequency ablation) at levels T3-T6, as suggested by her physician, Dr. Hamilton. In her complaint, Brehm contends that Protegrity de-authorized Dr. Hamilton, and, instead, authorized Dr. Albert Morgan (also a defendant in the present action) to perform the procedure. Brehm's complaint further alleges that Dr. Morgan performed the procedure at the wrong level of her spine, i.e., at levels TI-T3 rather than levels T3-T6. Following the alleged medical malpractice by Dr. Morgan, and what she alleges was the inappropriate handling of her workers' compensation claim, Brehm filed suit against Protegrity, alleging claims of medical malpractice, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and violation of fiduciary duties. Protegrity filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Brehm's claims were barred by workers' compensation immunity. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed. We review the matter de novo. Pondella Hall For Hire, Inc. v. Lamar, 866 So. 2d 719, 721 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Randles v. Moore, 780 So. 2d 158, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Our examination must be limited to the four corners of the complaint. Id. An appellate court is "obligated to consider the allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to the pleader." Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 763 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Protegrity argues that Brehm's claims fall squarely within the exclusivity provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2000), the Workers' Compensation Act, and, as such, are barred by Florida's workers' compensation immunity. Protegrity further

2

asserts that Brehm's attempts to "circumvent that immunity by calling the carrier's action 'outrageous' should fail as have similar claims by other workers' compensation claimants in the past." Brehm answers that the trial court correctly denied Protegrity's motion to dismiss because her complaint alleges torts separate and independent from her work-related injury. Brehm argues that the facts pled in the complaint, which must be accepted by this Court, demonstrate actions that go beyond mere claims mishandling, and assert independent acts that rise to the level of actionable intentional torts. We disagree. Immunity from suit is an essential element of the workers' compensation system. As the supreme court explained in Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So. 2d 683, 686 (Fla. 2000): Florida's Worker's Compensation law is codified in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (1997). The statute is intended to provide a "quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to an injured worker and to facilitate the worker's return to gainful reemployment at a reasonable cost to the employer."

Download Protegrity v. Brehm.pdf