Free Legal Help in Florida

Ceilia Abramovic v. Dan Abramovic, 188 So. 3d 61 (2016) — District Court of Appeal of Florida

The custodial parent presumptively is entitled to the [tax] exemptions but may release them to the noncustodial parent.

Cited on: Dispute Over Claiming a Child as a Tax Dependent After Relocation

Collins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 775 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2015)

Held, as a matter of first impression, that a consumer need NOT show the disputed information was published to a third party in order to recover actual damages for a CRA's negligent failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under § 1681i(a), because that subsection speaks to the consumer's 'file' rather than to a 'consumer report.' The court also affirmed summary judgment on willfulness, holding that a CRA which verified a disputed debt by sending only an ACDV form to the furnisher and doing nothing else 'might have been negligent, but willfulness or recklessness is a higher standard that has not been met.'

Cited on: Removing an Inaccurate Accident Entry From Your LexisNexis Report

Morris v. Muniz, 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018)

In a wrongful-death medical malpractice case, held that (1) where the facts about the presuit expert's qualifications are unrefuted, dismissal for lack of a qualified presuit expert is reviewed DE NOVO, not for abuse of discretion; (2) a court may not dismiss for noncompliance with the informal presuit discovery process without first finding that the noncompliance prejudiced the defendant; and (3) applying §§ 766.202(6) and 766.102(5)(a)2. and (6), an expert affidavit that on its face states the statutory requirements establishes qualification where the defense offers no evidence contradicting it — 'Questioning the veracity of an expert's sworn statements is not the same as presenting evidence that suggests that the claims in the affidavit are false.' The Court quashed the dismissal and ordered the complaint reinstated, reiterating that presuit screening requirements must be construed in a manner that favors access to courts.

Cited on: Beginning a Florida Medical Negligence Wrongful Death Claim

Pollock v. Florida Department of Highway Patrol, 882 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2004)

Held that an underlying common-law or statutory duty of care is a PREREQUISITE to any governmental tort claim, and that the planning-versus-operational characterization 'has no bearing on the initial duty analysis' — the Court expressly refused to hold that an operational act automatically creates a duty. It further held that a governmental agency's internal policy or procedure manual cannot, standing alone, create an independent duty to individual citizens (unless the sovereign has adopted the protocols as its standard of conduct), and that FHP owed no duty either to maintain the roadway or to dispatch officers in response to a report of a stalled vehicle obstructing the highway.

Cited on: Rollover Crash Blamed on Road or Terrain Conditions

Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, 194 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 2016)

Held § 440.15(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009) — which cut off temporary total disability benefits after 104 weeks for a worker who is totally disabled and unable to work but has not yet reached maximum medical improvement — unconstitutional as applied, as a denial of the right of access to courts under article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution, because the resulting gap left the compensation scheme no longer a reasonable alternative to tort litigation. As a remedy the Court employed statutory revival, reinstating the pre-1994 limit of up to 260 weeks of temporary total disability benefits.

Cited on: Valuing a Workplace Chemical Burn With Permanent Nerve Damage