William Carl Smith v. ESI

In the case of William Carl Smith v. ESL, the E/C argued that no compensable accident occurred and they were not notified of said accident in a timely fashion. Following Ullman v. City of Tampa, the testimony of the E/C was found credible since the manager on duty at the time of the accident was proven to be reliable with her history of accurately completing accident report forms.
The E/C had multiple credible witnesses, while the claimant was unable to provide the same. Additionally, there was evidence that the claimant had preexisting injuries from over a decade prior.
The claimant was unable to prove their right to compensability based on section 440.02(19) in the Florida Statute. They were also found to have provided late notice of said injury based on section 440.185(1), since they waited more than thirty days to formally notify the E/C of their injury.

Claim for compensability DENIED and DISMISSED; Claim for attorney fees DENIED and DISMISSED, PFB DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

Source: The 440 Authority

Leave a Reply