Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Agents March on State Capitol in Lawmaker Push to Reform AOB

/in

 

Florida Agents March on State Capitol in Lawmaker Push to Reform AOB
By Amy O’Connor | January 25, 2018

More than 125 insurance agents from across Florida, along with members of the
Consumer ProtectionCoalition (CPC), march to the Florida Capitol on Wednesday
to highlight the need for Assignment of Benefits (AOB) reform. Photo by Colin Hackley.

Insurance agents from across Florida marched together on the state’s capitol Wednesday to deliver a message to Florida lawmakers: It’s time for assignment of benefits (AOB) reform.

Carrying signs that read “STOP AOB ABUSE,” about 125 members of the Florida Association of Insurance Agents (FAIA) were accompanied by representatives from the Florida Consumer Protection Coalition (CPC) as they carried their message from downtown Tallahassee to the Florida Capitol building.
 
“We are here with folks who see it every day,” said Jeff Grady President of FAIA, which represents about 2,000 property and casualty independent agencies in the state, in a video by CPC. “Rates are going up and coverages are becoming less. Consumers are losing because of the failure of the legislature to address AOB fraud.”

Contractors and attorneys are being blamed for abuse of AOB’s by taking control of a homeowner’s policy, inflating water or roof damage claims, and then suing the insurance company when it disputes the bill.

CPC, which consists of business leaders, consumer advocates, real estate agents, construction contractors, insurance agents and insurance trade groups pushing for reforms to end AOB abuse, has worked for two years to call attention to the problem. The march was the group’s latest effort to get lawmakers attention after they have failed to agree on reform in the previous five sessions.

Barry Gilway, CEO of Citizens, the state-run insurer of last resort, also attended the march with a message for lawmakers. Citizens has faced the brunt of AOB abuse, particularly in South Florida. But Gilway says things are just getting worse.

“Here is the scary part, this used to be Southeast Florida problem – it’s not a Southeast Florida problem anymore, its spreading across the state,” Gilway said. “The ultimate payer in this situation is the consumer – it’s that simple – they will pay the price.”

Rates have already started going up for many Florida homeowners, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg, says the industry. Many insurers are also responding by refusing to write in certain zip codes or are tightening coverage offerings.

Citizens raised rates last year and was approved to do so again in 2018. The company has said policyholders should expect rate increases for the foreseeable future. Citizens also blames AOB for an expected increase to its policyholder count after several years of shedding policies to the private market.

Lawmakers have accused the industry of exaggerating the effect of the abuse and using it as an excuse to raise rates. But the numbers look to be on the industry’s side. A recent data call report from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) of water or roof damage claims from private insurers between Jan. 2015 and June 2017 found that the frequency of water claims per 1,000 policies increased 44 percent since 2015 and severity increased by 18 percent.

The use of AOB’s on water claims has increased from 12.8 percent in 2015 to 17 percent in 2017, OIR said. According to the Florida Justice Reform Institute, there has been a 300 percent increase in AOB lawsuits since 2010.

“This is not an emotional issue – just let the data speak for itself,” said Florida CFO Jimmy Patronis, who spoke to agents at a breakfast before Wednesday’s march and has also been vocal about the need for AOB reform.

Patronis urged lawmakers to act, saying the increase in AOB lawsuits is “a total exploitation of the law.”

“I hope the [legislature] will pass meaningful legislation that, at the end of the day, will keep insurance in the state of Florida as low as it can for our consumers,” he said. “It’s an issue that is going to potentially affect every insurance policy in the state of Florida if we don’t do something about it.”

Grady said the industry has tried to get that message across to legislators, but for the last five years it hasn’t been received. The industry is hopeful this year will be different.

“These folks are here firsthand with the experiences of their consumers to tell legislators to get this done,” Grady said.

For their part, lawmakers have been weighing several bills that would address the problem since the 2018 Florida Legislative Session kicked off earlier this month.

But which path lawmakers choose is a point of contention and concern for the insurance industry. So far the Florida House has passed a bill the industry supports, House Bill 7015, but the Florida Senate has yet to act on it.

The industry says it would be the most effective at reforming AOB because of provisions addressing Florida’s “one-way attorney fee” statute. The statute, designed to be a policyholder protection for those suing an insurance company, has been the main source of abuse, the industry says, as an assignee can sue insurers over a claim and the insurers end up paying the attorney fees.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jay Trumbull, would chip away at incentives for third parties to sue insurance companies by awarding fees under a formula based on the judgement obtained by the assignee and the pre-suit settlement offer.

In a press release, the Consumer Protection Coalition urged the Florida Senate to take up HB 7015, which they said include “commonsense protections for consumers and modifications to one-way attorney fee rules.”

The industry has also voiced support for Senate Bill 62, drafted by OIR and other stakeholders last year and reintroduced this session, but it has not had a hearing. Senate lawmakers let the current house bill die last year.

“The House has understood that consumers need this loophole closed, that there is fraud going on in AOB in Florida,” said David Hart, executive vice president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, a member of CPC and part of yesterday’s march. “Consumers are long overdue for attention to this issue and this loophole to be closed.”

Senate lawmakers have called for a guarantee that property insurance rates would go down if the industry’s proposed reforms are enacted. The Florida Senate has shown preference for Senate Bill 1168 filed by Senator Greg Steube, which does not address the one-way attorney fee statute and is favored by the trial bar and water restoration contractors.

CPC said in a statement that it opposes that bill “because it does not go far enough to protect consumers and would not allow insurers to include litigation costs in their rates.”

The industry appears to have consumers on their side of the issue this year, at least according to a poll by the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) that showed 60 percent of voters surveyed say the current system for using AOBs in property insurance claims needs to be reformed.

“Let’s keep the consumer number one in our mind. The same homeowners that I represent as an insurance agent [lawmakers] represent as a constituent, and we all ought to be working together regardless of the issue,” said Doug Wiles, chairman of FAIA and president of Herbie Wiles Insurance Agency in St. Augustine, Fla. “But in particular now, to avoid these significant rate increases, to avoid degradation of coverage, to make sure that our homeowners insurance market remains healthy in the state of Florida.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2018/01/25/478397.htm 

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida AOB Bill Passes Senate Insurance Panel Despite Business Opposition

/in

 

by Michael Carroll | Jan. 24, 2018, 6:52am

TALLAHASSEE – A Florida Senate panel gave a thumbs-up Tuesday to a bill that would prevent property insurers from including attorney fees and other legal costs in their rate base, despite opposition from insurance firms and other business interests.

Insurers and business leaders complained before the Banking and Insurance Committee that SB 1168, authored by Sen. Greg Steube (R-Sarasota), would not do enough to reform the state’s controversial assignment-of-benefits practice. The AOB process allows policyholders to sign away their legal rights to third-party vendors, who often promise quick repairs to water-damaged homes.

But critics say property insurance rates have shot up in recent years because the vendors charge exorbitant rates, which insurers fight in court. If they lose, however, the insurers are on the hook for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees due to the AOB process.

Steube emphasized on Tuesday, however, that his bill would invalidate AOB agreements unless specific conditions are met and includes the right of insurers to inspect properties in a timely manner.

An amendment authored by Sen. Doug Broxson (R-Gulf Breeze) would have more directly dealt with the AOB issue.

“It goes to the heart of the problem,” Broxson said of his amendment, “and that is litigation.”

Florida has too much litigation, and costs continue to go up, the senator said at Tuesday’s hearing. Courts have “overstretched” on the AOB issue, Broxson said, and it’s time that legislators designate the state’s one-way attorney fee provision for the named insured only – and not for third parties.

Business leaders testifying at the hearing supported Broxson’s amendment, though it ultimately went down to defeat.

Christine Ashburn, who oversees legislative affairs for Citizens Property Insurance Corp., said the company saw Broxson’s approach as a way to get at the root of the problem and hold down insurance rates.

“This would go a long way to settle the AOB crisis,” Ashburn said.

The amendment directly addresses the attorney-fee issue and Florida’s increasing insurance rates while still protecting consumers, said Carolyn Johnson, director of business, economic development and innovation policy for the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

But Jason Mulholland, speaking for the Florida Justice Association, said the Broxson amendment would go too far in restricting AOB rights.

“Other provisions build in delay and lock the courthouse doors to assignees,” said Mulholland, who urged senators to oppose the amendment and praised the Steube bill as fair to insurers, contractors and policyholders.

Others, however, characterized the AOB problem in Florida as largely the product of a small minority of law firms.

A study done for the Florida Justice Reform Institute found that 15 years ago, fewer than 8,000 AOB lawsuits were filed, according to Ashley Kalifeh, representing the Associated Industries of Florida. That number soared in 2017 to 130,000, more than half of all lawsuits filed against insurers, Kalfeh said.

Others at the hearing seemed more inclined to keep the debate going over the provisions of the Steube bill rather than seeing it die in committee. Sen. Rob Bradley (R-Fleming Island) said he would vote for the bill as a work in process, but Bradley would have opposed it if it were presented in its current form on the Senate floor.

“We’re trying to find solutions that are somewhere in between the bill before us for a vote and the amendment by Sen. Braxson,” Bradley said.

Braxson, however, sees Steube’s bill as having little effect on the state’s AOB problems.

“It appears to me that we’re kind of rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic,” he said, rather than addressing the hole in the middle of the boat.

Florida Justice Reform Institute

House Votes to Cap Claimants’ Attorney Fees at $150 an Hour

/in

 

Monday, January 15, 2018

House Votes to Cap Claimants’ Attorney Fees at $150 an Hour

By J. Todd Foster

On the fourth day of the 2018 legislative session, members of the Florida’s House of Representatives voted along party lines to pass a bill that would cap claimants’ attorney fees at $150 an hour even though a 9.5% rate decrease went into effect 11 days earlier.

The House on Friday voted 74-30 to pass House Bill 7009, with Republicans supporting the measure and Democrats opposed.

Claimants’ attorneys decried the fee cap as a giveaway to insurance companies and said they get paid only when a carrier wrongfully denies benefits.

Business and insurance group, which are clamoring for lower claimants’ attorney fees, said the fast-tracked passage of House Bill 7009 was premature and that the legislation doesn’t go far enough.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 23-15 majority over Democrats.  The makeup of the House is 76 Republicans and 40 Democrats.

Sponsoring Rep. Danny Burgess, R-Zephyrhills, who chairs the Insurance & Banking Subcommittee, said he worked two years on a compromise bill that would address the state Supreme Court’s constitutional concerns over Florida’s statutory fee schedule.

The high court ruled 5-2 in Castellanos v. Next Door Co. that the formula was unconstitutional because it did not allow for reasonable fees in complex, labor-intensive cases.

The ruling triggered a 14.5% rate hike by the National Council on Compensation Insurance in 2016 but then a recent 9.5% decrease based on favorable experience for insurers during 2014 and 2015 policy years.

The statutory fee formula, which is still used along with departure fees approved by judges of compensation claims, requires claimants’ attorneys to receive 20% of the first $5,000 in benefits secured, 15% of the next $5,000, 10% of the remaining amount of benefits secured during the first 10 years after a claim is filed, and 5% of the benefits secured after 10 years.

HB 7009 would allow hourly or so-called “departure” fees, up to $150, outside of the statutory fee schedule if the total payment would amount to less than 40%, or greater than 125% of the customary amount a defense attorney would have earned in the same locality.  

The bill also includes other workers’ compensation reforms:

•  Requiring a good-faith effort by claimants and their attorneys to resolve disputes before filing a petition for benefits; eliminating carrier-paid attorney fees for services occurring before the filing of a petition; and attaching attorney fees 45 days, rather than 30 days, following the filing of a petition.

•  Requiring the judge of compensation claims to dismiss a petition for lack of specificity, without prejudice, within 10 days or 20 days, depending upon whether a hearing is required.

•  Eliminating the charge-based reimbursement of health care facility outpatient medical care, and setting reimbursement at 200% of Medicare for unscheduled care and 160% for scheduled surgeries.  If no Medicare fee exists, current reimbursement standards would apply.

A House staff analysis is HB 7009 is here. 

It will be another one to two years before regulators and NCCI can determine the full effect of the April 2016 Castellanos ruling.  But early data from the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims show that claimants’ attorney fees increased 36% in fiscal 2017.  Defense bills still accounted for nearly 58% of the $439,609,031 in total legal fees paid during the period ending June 30.

“There is no need to implement a massive workers’ compensation rewrite in the absence of real post-Castellanos data,” said William W. Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a tort reform advocacy group.

“Right now, we don’t have a clear picture of what the post-Castellanos data means, and until such time, the Legislature should not do anything,” Large said in a telephone interview.

Seventeen business and employer organizations on Wednesdat wrote House members that HB 7009 did not go far enough to address what they called the major cost driver of claimants’ attorney fees.

The organizations ranged from home builders to local government associations, retailers, food processors and local insurers.

“We respectfully urge the House to stand ready for reform once the full impact of the Castellanos case is realized,” the letter states. “It is our assertion that until post-Castellanos claims data is applied as the basis for workers’ compensation rates, reform efforts may prove premature and ultimately, inadequate.”

One of the signatories, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, praised the sponsoring lawmaker’s efforts. But Carolyn Johnson, the chamber’s director of business, economic development and innovation policy, on Friday said, “We continue to have concerns that the bill doesn’t go far enough and that we should wait until we fully understand the impacts of Castellanos.”

Miami claimants’ attorney Mark Touby, who represented Marvin Castellanos in the groundbreaking court case, issued a statement on behalf of Florida Workers’ Advocates, a group that advocates for injured and disabled workers.

“The Florida House has once again struck out on an important opportunity to bring meaningful rate reform and transparency to the many businesses required to pay workers’compensation insurance in Florida,” Touby said. “After hearing doom-and-gloom warnings from the insurance industry that the sky was falling and rates needed a double-digit increase, those misleading claims have now been proven to be false and we are whiplashed by a nearly double-digit decrease in rates.”

“This rollercoaster ride of rates is indisputably bad for Florida’s businesses, and the legislation approved by the Florida House today turns the workers’ compensation grand bargain into a grand illusion,” he said.

Touby said the bill ultimately would hurt Florida’s businesses by delaying and denying medical care to workers “while lining the pockets of the insurance industry.”

Maitland claimants’ attorney Geoff Bichler called the legislation “foolish” and said it imperils workers’ compensation as a viable exclusive remedy.

“My firm will not accept contingent fee cases with $150 an hour caps, and we will continue to fight for reasonable fees as a penalty against employers and carriers found to have wrongfully denied benefits,” Bichler said.

 Winter Park defense attorney W. Rogers Turner Jr. said the House staff analysis contains no language on why a maximum $150 hourly fee is or isn’t reasonable and that it appears it is “just presented as an amount.”

“My guess is that it would be attacked as arbitrary and unreasonable, among other things,” Turner said.

Logan McFaddin, regional manager for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, called HB 7009 a “reasonable compromise.”

During a rigorous round of floor debate Friday, Rep. Joseph Geller, D-Aventura, warned that the

$150 hourly cap likely would be struck down by the high court and that the rate is so low that injured workers would be unable to find representation.

Rep. Sean Shaw, D-Tampa, a claimants’ attorney, decried the blame game on “big bad attorneys.”

“I get all these letters from industry groups about the sky and how it’s already fallen,” Shaw said. “The sky never fell. Rates went down.”

Rep. Rob Rommel, R-Naples, said the 14.5% rate hike effective last year cost his small business more than $4,000 in higher premiums and that he is “terrified” about what’s going to happen to claimants’ attorney fees in the next five years.

HB 7009 sponsor Burgess said the rate increase spiked premiums by more than a half-billion dollars and that the Castellanos decision was singularly responsible for more than $360 million of that.

 “You’ve seen the lightning. You see the lightning before you hear the thunder. You see the flash, the 14.5% increase. The thunder is going to be heard in 2018 and 2019 and any year afterward if we don’t do anything,” said Burgess, a business and contracts lawyer.

HB 7009 now moves to the Senate.

Senate President Joe Negron, R-Stuart, said at a press conference Thursday that several senators had expressed interest in reforming attorney fees. But he said those reforms also should include defense fees.

“I think we should consider a workers’ compensation proposal that’s fair to injured workers and that also provides predictability to employers, and makes sure that legal costs on both sides — claimant’s side and defense side — are reasonable,” Negron said.

“Employers only want to pay attorney fees that are necessary … and want them to be as low as possible,” he said.

https://ww3.workcompcentral.com/news/story/id/0111b65bf07a6f7b12d4b4e540e05de58c42d119 

Reprinted courtesy of WorkCompCentral.

Florida Justice Reform Institute

No-fault Auto Insurance Repeal advances in Senate

/in

 

No-fault auto insurance repeal advances in Senate

January 10, 2018

A bill that would repeal Florida’s longstanding no-fault auto insurance system and require vehicle owners to buy bodily injury coverage cleared a key Senatecommittee on Wednesday over objections from insurance representatives who predicted premiums and lawsuits would increase.

If enacted, Florida vehicle owners would no longer be able to buy personal injury protection (PIP), a low-cost policy that provides up to $10,000 in emergency medical care for themselves and occupants of their vehicles regardless of who is at fault in crashes.

Under the Senate bill introduced by Tom Lee, R-Brandon, vehicle owners would instead be required to buy liability coverage that would fund care for occupants of other vehicles when the policyholder causes a crash.

Florida is one of just two states that do not require vehicle owners to carry some amount of bodily injury liability coverage.

“We logically should insure people against the negligent damage we all may cause,” said Dale Swope, president of the Florida Justice Association, a trade group representing trial attorneys, urging passage of the bill at the Wednesday meeting in Tallahassee.

The PIP law, last updated in 1979, was initially created to ensure funding of medical care for anyone injured in a crash. But it does not require policyholders to buy liability coverage unless they cause a crash or are convicted of certain traffic offenses.

Lee said, “It’s intuitive to think a no-fault law would somehow be devoid of litigation. You don’t have to prove fault, you just have access to coverage for your injuries. But that’s proven to be quite a misnomer. In fact, there is a substantial amount of litigation going on in Florida.”

Lawsuits over no-fault insurance have increased because of consumer protection provisions in state law that encourage attorneys to file bad faith claims against insurers — “over virtually nothing,” Lee said — for amounts beyond PIP coverage caps. Also driving “a tremendous amount of litigation” is a requirement that victims prove their injuries are permanent so they can meet the standard required to receive money for pain and suffering, Lee said.

Christine Rodriguez, a Clermont resident, urged support of the repeal, explaining she was struck from behind three times between December 2014 and July 2016 and forced to open three PIP claims because the drivers had no liability insurance. Afterward, her insurance company labeled her an “at-risk” driver and dropped her. When she found another insurer, her premium increased from $2,700 to $5,800.

A House version of the repeal bill has already been approved at the committee level and is expected to get a vote in the full chamber this week. But that bill lacks an additional requirement in the Senate bill that policyholders must buy $5,000 to fund emergency medical care for themselves. Lee added the so-called MedPay requirement in response to concerns by emergency medical providers over who would pay to treat victims injured by uninsured drivers.

The MedPay provision would give victims 14 days to seek medical treatment and cover chiropractic and dental costs as well.

While the House bill is estimated to reduce average per-policy costs by $81 by removing the PIP requirement, the MedPay provision in the Senate bill would initially create a range of financial impacts, depending on where policyholders live. In urban areas such as South Florida, premium costs would drop because PIP coverage is more expensive. However, premiums would increase in smaller metro areas where PIP coverage costs less, such as Tallahassee.

Mark Delegal, a lobbyist for State Farm, opposed the Senate bill and predicted premiums would increase for vehicle owners who only buy the minimum coverage needed to get “street legal.”

Doug Bell, a lobbyist for Progressive Insurance, also opposed the bill, saying the MedPay coverage requirement and bodily injury coverage requirement would create “a pretty significant [cost] increase to insureds of Florida.”

Rick Parker, representing the Florida Justice Reform Institute, urged the committee not to support the repeal without also finding a way to quell bad faith lawsuits, which he said “arise out of $10,000 policies and not $100,000 or $1 million policies.”

The committee supported the bill with a 10-1 vote, with the sole no vote coming from Sen. Doug Broxson, a Republican representing Escambia County, Santa Rosa County and part of Okaloosa County in the Panhandle.

In other insurance-related news from the Legislature, the House Banking and Insurance Subcommittee unanimously approved a bill that would require property insurance purchasers to sign their initials next to a statement alerting them that their policies do not include flood insurance.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-bz-no-fault-repeal-bill-advances-20180110-story.html

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Lawmakers Return with Nearly Two-Dozen Comp Bills Filed

/in

 

Lawmakers Return With Nearly Two-Dozen Comp Bills Filed

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 – By J. Todd Foster

Lawmakers will gavel-in their 2018 legislative session today and already have at least 22 workers’ compensation-related bills to consider, including one that would cap claimants’ attorney fees at $150 an hour.

Another measure would require the state’s consumer advocate to review any workers’ compensation rate filings and make recommendations to the Office of Insurance Regulation.

Both bills are among the nearly 3,000 that were prefiled over the past few months. Most will never make it to a hearing, if last year is any indication. Lawmakers in 2017 passed 249 bills out of 3,052 drafted — a pass rate of 8.2%.

Under Senate Bill 1634, filed Friday by Sen. Tom Lee, R- Brandon, the Office of Insurance Regulation would be forbidden from approving or disapproving a filing, or issuing a notice of intent to approve or disapprove, before the office responds to the recommendations of the consumer advocate.

The Florida Justice Reform Institute, the American Insurance Association and the National Federation of Independent Business/Florida all oppose SB 1634.

“I think this is an unnecessary step that would lead to more litigation. The consumer advocate is not properly equipped to judge the soundness of actuarial filings,” said Florida Justice Reform Institute President William W. Large.

The institute champions tort reform.

Ron Jackson, AIA Southeast region vice president, said, “Adding an extra step to the workers’ compensation review and approval process is redundant and unnecessary. Workers’ compensation rate filings are already well supported with evidence, and subjected to rigorous scrutiny and public hearing before the Office of Insurance Regulation.”

“We’d rather build a very strong foundation for workers’ compensation before we start redecorating and putting up new wallpaper,” said NFIB/Florida Executive Director Bill Herrle. “We need to stick to the core issues that we believe will reduce costs rather than just something that will add another voice.”

Herrle added that SB 1634 appears to be a shot at Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier, who has been hit with “an awful lot of unfairness” since taking the job in April 2016.

“We have full confidence in the insurance commissioner and his team, and people ought to focus on reducing costs rather than finding a new voice in the chorus,” he said.

Lee, SB 1634’s sponsor, did not return two calls seeking comment.

HB 7009, sponsored by House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee Chairman Danny Burgess, R-Zephyrhills, would cap claimants’ attorney fees at $150 an hour.

It would allow departure fees from the state’s statutory fee schedule if the rate would amount to less than 40%, or greater than 125%, of the customary amount a defense attorney would have earned in the same locality, based on an analysis of local defense attorneys’ hourly rates.

It proposes several other revisions to the workers’ compensation system by:

•  Increasing the duration of temporary total disability benefits to 260 weeks from the 104-week cap that the state Supreme Court in June 2016 declared unconstitutional in Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg.

•  Making the injured worker responsible for remaining attorney fees if required by a retainer agreement. Allowing carriers to reduce premiums by up to 5% if they disagree with the filings made on their behalf by the National Council on Compensation Insurance.

•  Eliminating charge-based reimbursement of outpatient medical care in favor of reimbursement at 200% of the Medicare rate for unscheduled care, and 160% of the Medicare rate for scheduled surgery.

•  Setting reimbursement for scheduled outpatient surgery in a hospital or ambulatory surgical center at 60% of the statewide average charge if the service does not have a fee or rate under the Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System.

•  Allowing carriers to wait 45 days to pay claimants’ attorneys instead of the current 30.

 HB 7009 is identical to Proposed Committee Bill 18-01, which passed the House Commerce Committee by an 18-8 vote — largely along party lines — on Nov. 14.

 Here’s a summary of other workers’ compensation-related bills already introduced for this year’s 60-day session:

• SB 376, by Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation, passed the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee unanimously on Dec. 5 and would compensate first responders for lost wages for mental injuries without corresponding physical injuries, commonly called “mental-mental” claims. The evidentiary standard would be “preponderance of the evidence.” It would require responders only to have arrived on the scene of the traumatic incidents that later trigger their mental injuries. SB 376 is similar to HB 629 and SB 126. HB 227, by Rep. Matt Willhite, D-Palm Beach, would use the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard and would require first responders to have actually witnessed traumatic events.

• SB 258, by Sen. Gary Farmer Jr., D-Lighthouse Point, would prohibit attorney fees paid by insurers to be included in their rate base or used to justify a rate or a rate change.

• HB 687, sponsored by Rep. Cory Byrd, R-Neptune Beach, would increase the initial term of judges of compensation claims to six years, from four years. Each full-time compensation judge would earn $10,000 less than the annual salary paid to a circuit court judge. Compensation claims judges currently earn $124,564 a year — $36,124 less than circuit court judges.

• SB 1412, sponsored by Sen. David Simmons, R-Longwood, calls for judges in the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims to be paid the same as county judges, who preside over misdemeanor criminal cases and civil cases with up to $15,000 in dispute. County judges in Florida currently earn $151,822 — 21.9% more than the OJCC judges. The bill also would increase initial judicial terms from four to six years.

• SB 280, sponsored by Sen. Aaron Bean, R-Jacksonville, would urge insurers, including those that write workers’ compensation, to cover services provided through telehealth. An insurer that offers a rate plan approved under Section 4 of 627.0915 of the Florida Statutes would be “encouraged” to cover telehealth services, defined as a provider using telecommunications technology to treat patients in remote locations. SB 534, by Sen. Denise Grimsley, R-Sebring, would regulate pharmacy benefit managers by adding them to the list of administrators who directly or indirectly solicit coverage of premiums or settle claims for health insurance coverage, including workers’ compensation claims.

• SB 648, by Sen. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, would provide workers’ compensation coverage for disabled participants in an adult or youth work experience activity.

• SB 1568, sponsored by Farmer, would require Florida employers to comply with specified provisions relating to the unlawful employment of undocumented workers, unfair immigration-related employment practices, and financial and criminal penalties for violations.

• SB 1098, by Sen. Perry Thurston, D-Fort Lauderdale, and its House companion, HB 923, by Rep. Wengay Newton, D-St. Petersburg, would allow regulators to investigate, audit or review professional employer organizations at the request of client companies. The bills would require PEOs to provide clients, within seven days of a request, all information pertaining to the client’s business, including actual coverage under its workers’ compensation policy, loss-run history and actual dates of coverage.

• HB 1235, by Rep. Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, would provide that qualified loss-sensitive reinsurance programs that accompany certain guaranteed workers’ compensation policies must be filed with, but not approved by, the Office of Insurance Regulation. SB 1866, filed Friday by Sen. Douglas Broxson, R- Pensacola, is identical to HB 1235.

• SB 8, by Sen. Lizbeth Benacquisto, R-Fort Myers, would authorize certain boards to require providers to complete a specified board-approved continuing education course to obtain authorization for prescribing opioids and other medications. Related bills are SB 458, HB 1159 and HB 21.

https://ww3.workcompcentral.com/

Reprinted courtesy of WorkCompCentral.

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Justice Reform Institute

  • Phone

    (850) 222-0170

  • Hours of Operation

    Monday – Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

  • Address

    210 S Monroe Street
    Tallahassee, FL 32301

Site Links