Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. /// Florida Jurisdiction in Workers’ Compensation Cases for Out-of-State Accidents

Can a Worker Injured Outside of Florida Be Eligible for Florida Workers’ Compensation Benefits?

Under § 440.09(1)(d), Fla. Stat., an employee injured outside of Florida may still be entitled to Florida workers’ compensation benefits if certain jurisdictional requirements are met:

“If an accident happens while the employee is employed elsewhere than in this state, which would entitle the employee or his or her dependents to compensation if it had happened in this state, the employee or his or her dependents are entitled to compensation if the contract of employment was made in this state, or the employment was principally localized in this state. However, if an employee receives compensation or damages under the laws of any other state, the total compensation for the injury may not be greater than is provided in this chapter.”

Key Jurisdictional Requirements

Florida jurisdiction may be established if either of the following is satisfied:

• The contract of employment was made in Florida; or
• The employment was principally localized in Florida.

The Contract of Employment

Florida courts determine where an employment contract is “made” by considering (1) the authority of the person involved in the hiring process and (2) the location where the final acts necessary to form the employment relationship occurred. Cleveland Consol., Inc. v. Haren, 672 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quoting Nelson v. McAbee Constr., Inc., 591 So.2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)).

In DL Peoples Group, Inc. v. Hawley, 804 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the court found Florida jurisdiction even though the claimant had limited contacts with the state. The claimant was interviewed and signed the employment agreement in Missouri, but the employer’s final approval occurred in Florida. The court emphasized that:

• Mutual promises between employer and employee create a bilateral contract (McIntosh v. Harbour Club Villas Condominium, 468 So.2d 1075, 1076; Baiter v. Pan American Bank of Hialeah, 383 So.2d 256, 257; Mark Realty, Inc. v. Rogness, 418 So.2d 373, 376).
• A contract is formed where the last act necessary to create a binding agreement occurs (Peters v. E.O. Painter Fertilizer Co., 75 So. 749; Ray-Hof Agencies, Inc. v. Petersen, 123 So.2d 251, 253; Goodman v. Olsen, 305 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1974)).

Because the employer’s final approval occurred in Florida, the employment contract was deemed made in Florida. See also Owens v. CCJ Auto Transp., 59 So.3d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Miller Contracting Co. of Ohio v. Hutto, 156 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1963).

Principal Location of Employment

For jurisdiction under § 440.09(1)(d), the focus is on the employee’s principal work location, not the employer’s headquarters. Johnson v. United Airlines, 550 So.2d 134, 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Gen. Elec. v. DeCubas, 504 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

In DeCubas, a Florida resident injured in Georgia spent approximately 73% of his work time in Florida, and the court found his employment was principally localized in Florida. Similarly, in Hazealeferiou v. Labor Ready, 947 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), the court held that a flight attendant’s employment was principally localized in Florida based on the overall nature of the work, including supervision, payroll, and work assignments, even though a significant portion of work occurred outside the state. The court emphasized that time spent in Florida is an important factor, but not the sole determinant.

Conclusion

Determining Florida workers’ compensation jurisdiction for out-of-state injuries requires a fact-intensive analysis of both where the employment contract was formed and where the employment is principally localized. These issues are often nuanced and require careful evaluation of the full employment relationship.

In some cases, an injured worker may have the option to pursue benefits in more than one jurisdiction. Because each state maintains its own workers’ compensation statutory scheme, the advantages and limitations of each available system must be carefully evaluated to determine the most favorable avenue for relief.

By way of illustration, I engaged in a detailed jurisdictional analysis with a Maryland attorney concerning a potential claimant who was injured in Florida but resides in Maryland and was hired in Maryland by a Washington-based employer. We compared the jurisdictional factors and evaluated the relative benefits available under Florida and Maryland workers’ compensation systems to assess whether the claim should be pursued in Florida or handled under Maryland law. We decided that it was better for the client to pursue benefits in Maryland.

**********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.

Our firm is grateful for the many cases we receive through referrals from fellow attorneys. We also routinely pay referral fees to referring counsel in accordance with applicable ethical rules.