July 24, 2026

FORT LAUDERDALE – Sal Richardson, Managing Partner of Workers' Compensation in Fort Lauderdale, secured a significant defense victory at trial, resulting in the total denial and dismissal of a workers’ compensation claim. Despite the claim being initially accepted on a 120-day "pay and investigate" basis, the defense successfully utilized this statutory window to prove a lack of objective medical evidence and expose critical inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony, shielding the client from all indemnity and medical liabilities.

Overview of the Case

The matter involved a claimant who alleged he sustained neck and back injuries in June 2023 while attempting to mount a heavy tire onto a forklift. With no immediate evidence of the incident, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) initially accepted the claim on a 120-day "pay and investigate" basis. However, a rigorous investigation conducted during this statutory window revealed that the claimant's descriptions of the accident’s cause and date were inconsistent with his own medical experts’ records. Consequently, the E/C issued a formal denial of the claim in its entirety before the 120-day period lapsed, a position that was later upheld and finalized by the Judge at trial.

Key Difference-Maker

• Sal A. Richardson – Managing Partner of Workers’ Compensation in Ft. Lauderdale

Administrative Support

• Dekesha Davis - Paralegal
  

Claims Made Against Our Client

The claimant filed a Petition for Benefits seeking comprehensive indemnity and medical relief following the alleged 2023 forklift incident. The specific claims brought to trial included temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits seeking retroactive payments from June 27, 2023, through the present date, and continuing for the maximum period provided by law. Additionally, the claimant requested the authorization and set-up of a formal appointment with an authorized physician to address a wide-ranging list of alleged injuries to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, both legs, the right hand, and the upper extremities.

The litigation also involved the pursuit of penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees (PICA). Opposing counsel’s strategy relied on the argument that the initial provisional acceptance of the claim warranted a presumption of continued compensability. To support this position, counsel utilized live testimony from the claimant, who testified through an interpreter, and deposition testimony from an orthopedic expert to attempt to bridge significant gaps in the medical record.

Defense Strategy

The defense strategy centered on a "total discovery" approach, leveraging the 120-day investigation period to dismantle the claimant's credibility and evaluate the major contributing cause of the alleged injuries. Mr. Richardson executed a meticulous review of deposition transcripts and medical records that revealed a plethora of discrepancies. Specifically, he uncovered that the claimant had reported the accident as occurring in 2021 to other physicians, contradicting his current claim of a 2023 industrial accident. Most critically, the defense secured prior medical records showing the claimant had been treated for identical low back pain five months before the alleged incident.

At trial, the defense utilized these prior statements to systematically impeach the claimant during cross-examination. By juxtaposing his live testimony against the documented medical history and prior depositions, Mr. Richardson exposed significant inconsistencies regarding the accident's mechanism and date. This strategic pressure forced the claimant into nonresponsive and contradictory testimony, leading the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) to officially note that the claimant was "evasive" and "inconsistent with prior statements to health care providers." This comprehensive approach allowed the defense to prove that the claimant had failed to meet his burden of compensability without having to rely on a riskier misrepresentation defense.

Impact on Final Outcome

The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) upheld the Employer/Carrier’s denial in its entirety, ruling that the claimant failed to meet the burden of compensability. The claim was dismissed with prejudice in its entirety, precluding the claimant from any recovery of benefits, statutory interest, or associated legal costs. This outcome validated the E/C’s decision to utilize the statutory "pay and investigate" period to perform due diligence rather than accepting a questionable claim at face value.

Unique Aspects of the Case

The most unique aspect of this litigation was that the claim was initially accepted on a 120-day basis, for which the Carrier agreed to pay a fee to the original counsel. However, through due diligence and investigation, the defense established a factual basis to deny the claim within that statutory window. By the time the matter reached trial, the claimant’s original attorney had withdrawn, leaving successor counsel with the challenge of proving continued compensability after a timely denial.

Additionally, the defense addressed a strategic shift in the mechanism of injury during the proceedings. The claimant attempted to pivot from a discrete accident date to a repetitive trauma claim, but was unable to provide the necessary testimony to support this alternative theory. As a result, the case was decided based on the original June 2023 allegations, which the defense had already countered through medical and deposition evidence.

Predicting the Future

This case highlights the critical importance of continuing discovery even after a claim is provisionally accepted. By following the statutes and investigating properly before the time to deny lapsed, the Carrier mitigated their exposure substantially. This victory reinforces the Fort Lauderdale team's dedication to finding effective solutions that address the unique challenges of each matter while mitigating client exposure from case inception to resolution.

Key Actions in This Case

• Discovery-Driven Denial: Successfully used the 120-day investigation period to gather medical evidence of pre-existing conditions, neutralizing the claim before liability was finalized.
  
• Impeachment Proficiency: Utilized prior deposition discrepancies to cause immediate impeachment of the claimant’s testimony during trial.
  
• Medical Record Juxtaposition: Effectively contrasted the claimant’s IME report against prior primary care records to prove the injury predated the alleged accident.

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 60 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.