Tony Protopapas v. Innisbrook Resort and Auto Owners was an appeal over 24-hour attendant care benefits for the claimant who was injured in their workplace. The E/C gave a res judicata defense, stating that the issue had already been determined in prior court dates. However, in accordance with Donahue v. Davis and Gold v. Bankier, the cause of action and subject of this case were not the same- therefore this defense was overturned.
A second defense of collateral estoppel (or estoppel by judgement) was also rejected, as this case regarded a different time period than the previous one. With medical records and the testimony of the claimant’s doctor, The JCC ruled in favor of the claimant, since the accident was caused by some degree by their workplace, following the outcome of Consultants and Designers v. Brown.
Home attendant care and federal minimum wage pay GRANTED
Source: The 440 Authority