October 31, 2025
ShareKelley Kronenberg Secures Dismissal of Deficient Workers’ Compensation Petition
Kelley Kronenberg Partner/Business Unit Leader Elizabeth Yohe secured dismissal of a workers’ compensation petition for Vivas Group Inc. and Accredited Surety & Casualty Company in the Orlando District Office, eliminating approximately $20,000.00 in exposure through strategic procedural challenges.
The case involved a 38-year-old worker who fell while pushing a cart and alleged a foot injury. The claimant filed a petition seeking lost wages, a follow-up appointment with his authorized treating physician, plus attorney fees and costs.
Elizabeth immediately identified fatal deficiencies in the petition and filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds: lack of specificity under section 440.192, Florida Statutes, and failure to properly invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.
Florida law requires petitions for medical benefits to include “specific details as to why such benefits are being requested, why such benefits are medically necessary, and why current treatment, if any, is not sufficient.” The statute further requires a copy of the physician’s report making the recommendation for alternate or other medical care.
Elizabeth demonstrated that the petition failed these requirements on multiple levels. The claimant sought a “return/follow-up appointment” with his authorized provider in four weeks but provided no explanation of why the benefits were requested, why they were medically necessary, or why current treatment was insufficient. The attached physician’s form contained no specific treatment—only a vague reference to a return appointment under “Follow up.”
Elizabeth argued the petition failed to sufficiently put the carrier on notice of what was being sought in addition to, instead of, or in furtherance of already-authorized care. Without this specificity, the carrier could not properly evaluate, respond, or even defend against the claim.
Additionally, Elizabeth challenged whether the claimant’s counsel made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before filing the petition, as required by sections 440.192(3) and (4), Florida Statutes. She requested verification supporting the Certificate of Good Faith Effort filed with the petition but received no response.
When a petition for benefits does not meet specificity requirements on its face, Florida law requires summary dismissal. Kennedy v. Orlando Shader Realty, 711 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.107 similarly mandates dismissal of petitions lacking required statutory information.
After reviewing Elizabeth’s motion, and notably receiving no response from the claimant’s counsel, Judge Wilbur W. Anderson dismissed the petition without prejudice on August 29, 2025.
This victory demonstrates the importance of holding claimants to Florida’s statutory requirements in filing workers’ compensation petitions. For employers and carriers, this case reinforces that vague or conclusory petitions lacking detail about requested benefits can, and should be, challenged through strategic motions seeking dismissals, potentially eliminating exposure without having to expend resources on addressing the merits of underlying claims.