February 20, 2026

PENSACOLA – Managing Partner Frank Bozeman, III and Associate Susan Stanford achieved a complete defense verdict on behalf of a State Government Entity in a specialized Workers’ Compensation matter. Facing demands for lifetime specialty care and $35,000 in fees, the team secured a $0.00 award.

Overview of the Case

The litigation involved a claim for the compensability of alleged debilitating hypertension under Section 112.18(1), Florida Statutes. The claimant, a first responder, asserted that a January 2025 emergency room visit for chest pressure and hypertension entitled him to the statutory "Heart/Lung" presumption. This presumption typically allows first responders to receive lifetime medical care and lost wages if they can prove a total or partial disability.

Key Difference-Makers

• Frank Bozeman, III – Pensacola Managing Partner
• Susan Stanford – Pensacola Associate

Administrative Support

• Kaylen Cruz – Paralegal
• Kaitlyn Tillman – Secretary/Paralegal

Claims Made Against Our Client

The claimant sought authorization for a cardiologist and lifetime treatment, arguing his hypertension was a work-related injury. Opposing counsel, a firm specializing exclusively in first responder cases, presented expert testimony from a board-certified cardiologist who opined that the claimant suffered a health impairment on the date of the accident and required ongoing specialty management. Furthermore, the claimant’s attorney argued that the hypertension constituted a compensable condition under Section 112.18(1), Florida Statutes, asserting that the claimant was incapacitated from earning the same wages he received at the time of the injury.

Defense Strategy

The team provided argument and evidence that Claimant's trip to the ER on the date of injury, wherein he was complaining of chest pain and underwent testing for potential stomach and cardiovascular issues, was diagnostic in nature only and therefore, under Friesen¹, his condition did not meet the definition of disablement.

Mr. Bozeman and Ms. Stanford further dismantled the opposition’s case by utilizing Friesen against the claimant’s expert, arguing his opinions were based on hindsight rather than objective medical findings. Instead of relying on a counter-expert, the defense presented testimony from witnesses who testified that Claimant was not incapacitated to the extent that he could not earn the same wage as before the injury, and as a matter of fact he received a wage increase. This strategy culminated during the trial, where the defense elicited critical admissions from the claimant that undermined the necessity of work restrictions and directly led to the Court's determination that the statutory presumption did not apply. 

Impact on Final Outcome

The Court concluded that although the claimant was a member of a protected class, he failed to establish the total or partial disability required to invoke the statutory presumption. A decisive factor in this ruling was the successful discreditation of the claimant’s expert witness; the judge determined the expert's testimony was unreliable and based on hindsight rather than objective medical findings. Furthermore, the judge noted that no work restrictions were ever imposed following the initial diagnosis, and the claimant immediately returned to his regular duties. Consequently, the Court ruled that the claimant could not rely on the statutory presumption and dismissed all claims for benefits, fees, and costs with prejudice.

Unique Aspects of the Case

The Court held that here, as in Friesen, the claimant was found to have high blood pressure while at work and was evaluated by both the ER and his primary physician. Although he underwent testing and was prescribed medication, no restrictions were imposed, and he returned to his regular work duties. The Court quoted Friesen, stating that the detection of a condition always requires testing, medical evaluation, or some type of treatment, and these testing measures, by themselves, do not demonstrate disability. The team prevailed by arguing a narrow and precise distinction between the case at hand and the case proposed by opposing counsel, wherein a claimant was deemed disabled during their stay at the ER.

Predicting the Future

This victory reinforces QPWB’s proficiency in specialized Workers’ Compensation litigation. Prevailing in a matter involving a firm that focuses its practice on first responder cases demonstrates that our team possesses the tactical depth necessary to navigate high-stakes statutory claims. Moreover, this result signals that we will continue to utilize meticulous research and rigorous discovery to provide a comprehensive defense against lifetime medical exposure in complex litigation.

Key Actions in This Case

• ¹Robert Friesen v. State of Florida Highway Patrol/Division of Risk Management 364 So. 3d 1051
• Targeted Research: Identified and leveraged a nearly identical appellate case to frame the Court's legal conclusion.
• Expert Challenge: Successfully moved to have the opposing expert's "hindsight" opinions disregarded as unreliable.
• Cost Recovery: Following the dismissal, QPWB’s client will move to recover all litigation costs against the claimant.

About QPWB

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. is one of the fastest growing law firms in the United States providing a different focus on what it means to provide responsive service to clients and team members. With a national presence of 55 offices and a comprehensive scope of over 130 practice areas, QPWB delivers legal representation in litigation, regulatory, and corporate matters to a diverse range of industries. This scope and rapid expansion has attracted unique legal talent from all different backgrounds and experiences which has made them the largest minority-owned law firm in the country.