January 7, 20206 Workers' compensation is a system designed to protect employers and employees from "unexpected events happening suddenly." That phrase, or one like it, is featured in various statutes across the country. The Florida version is: “Accident" means only an unexpected or unusual event or result that happens suddenly. But what if the event is neither unexpected nor particularly unusual? What if the event is even intentional? I had thoughts on this recently as a news story evolved around workplace hazing. The event resulted in criminal charges of kidnapping, robbery and battery against multiple workers. The victim is reportedly back at work, and the alleged perpetrators are seeking opportunities for remuneration elsewhere (fired). As with too much today, the alleged incident is said to have started with social media. The victim apparently had a dance video on his phone, and his co-workers "began taunting ... about the video." As a rhythm-challenged person, I can identify with this. This taunting allegedly led to violence perpetrated against the victim. This, according to WFTV . Further details are in an earlier WFTV report . I spare the details, but if the allegations are true, the battery portion may be readily perceived. Hitting people is not a great idea in any circumstance. My students often struggle with battery and accepting that merely touching someone could lead to arrest. A recent People story about a flight attendant supports that. Admittedly, there is nothing in the reporting on the recent hazing that suggests this is an instance of work injury or even that medical care was required. Some battery is worse than others. Nonetheless, the situation described reminded me of several cases I litigated eons ago in a galaxy far, far, away (Jacksonville). One of those was a severe enough beating to require significant medical care. Does the workers' compensation law consider the potential that a co-worker might be responsible for, or contribute to, an injury? The right place to begin such an analysis is Section 440.11, the "exclusivity" provision.  This exclusivity is seen by many as the main benefit that employers enjoy from workers' compensation. What is less discussed is that this section provides "the same immunities from liability (for injury) enjoyed by an employer" to "each employee of the employer" in many or even most instances. Thus, co-workers who contribute to an "accident" enjoy some protection from civil (tort) liability, just as the employer itself does. But, there is an important exception that follows in that same statute section: Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death. So, if an employee beats a co-worker, there is at least some chance that the workers' compensation law will not protect the beater from a lawsuit by the beatee. There is also a broad provision that might preclude the payment of workers' compensation in such a beating. Section 440.09(3) might preclude the beatee from receiving compensation if the injury arose in an instance where the beatee began as the beater (the "aggressor"). Thus, the analysis can be complex at times. Nonetheless, there is the potential for violence in the workplace to create workers' compensation liability for the employer and potentially tort liability for co-workers. It is all worthy of review and consideration.

January 7, 2026 January 07, 2026 - The federal government has been focused on immigration issues and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been conducting "sweeps" in cities across the United States to identify, detain and deport persons illegally in the country. On Dec. 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that Operation Catahoula Crunch, a sweep conducted in New Orleans, has resulted in the arrest of more than 250 illegal or undocumented workers.   Employers may be wondering how this affects employment issues regarding those workers, especially when it comes to the obligation to pay workers' compensation benefits. Anticipating continued immigration sweeps, an understanding of workers' compensation claims involving undocumented workers is important for employers to understand.   Arguments for and against denying workers' compensation claims Proponents of denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented workers argue that because of the undocumented or illegal immigration status, there is no valid employment contract that is enforceable between the undocumented worker and the employer. They contend that in the absence of a valid employer/employee relationship, there can be no obligation to pay workers' compensation benefits. They suggest that detention and deportation from the U.S. is equal to incarceration and many states deny workers' compensation benefits during any period of incarceration.   Opponents of the denial of workers' compensation benefits to undocumented workers argue that workers' compensation laws serve the purpose of placing the financial burden of employee injuries on the employers who benefit from the workers' labor, rather than on society or the workers themselves.   How states are currently handling claims for undocumented workers In many states, undocumented workers who are injured on the job are entitled to workers' compensation benefits despite it being illegal for the employers to hire undocumented workers, although there are some caveats. In Alabama in 2005, Jefferson County Circuit Judge G. William Noble signed an order holding that an illegal worker was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The precedential importance of this case is uncertain because the decision was not appealed. In Champion Autobody v. Gallegos, a case in Colorado (Colo. App. Ct. 1997), the court held that illegal workers may collect benefits for work-related injuries as long as the work is related to the injury.   Florida law prohibits the payment of workers' compensation benefits to an injured worker if the employment was entered into under false information or pretenses. This means that if the undocumented worker provided a false Social Security number or otherwise misrepresented their status, the employer and carrier have the right to contest benefits. In Sanchez v. Eagle Alloy, a 2003 case in the Michigan Court of Appeals, the court held that illegal workers are entitled to workers' compensation medical benefits but are not entitled to disability or indemnity benefits because they committed a crime in violating the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.   Changes are already on the horizon With the current administration continuing its efforts to detain and deport illegal workers, this could mean there will be a shift in the way states handle workers' compensation benefits for undocumented workers. Changes are already on the horizon in Michigan and Florida.   As reported by MLive.com on Dec. 12, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a state policy that denies workers' compensation to undocumented workers who are injured in the course of employment. In 2021, the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center sued Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, seeking to challenge a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that found that workers' compensation benefits were not owed to workers whenever "commission of a crime" prevented the person from obtaining or performing work. The trial court held that using false documents to obtain a job constituted a crime. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center did not file suit timely. After a hearing in October 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center should not be allowed to appeal the decision. As reported in a Dec. 3, 2025, post on the Florida Politics website, Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia is backing legislation to deny workers' compensation benefits to undocumented workers. The legislation seeks to remove illegal immigrants as "covered employees" under Florida's workers' compensation statute. If the legislation is enacted, companies that hire undocumented workers could be required to pay out of pocket for work related injuries to those workers, rather than relying on workers' compensation insurance coverage. As proposed, employers would be required to use an E-Verify system when submitting workers' compensation claims after an injury to establish that the worker was legally hired.   What the future holds It is generally considered that there are currently 32 "red" states and 18 "blue" states. If the "red" states follow the lead of Michigan and Florida, this could significantly impact the administration of claims and provide an additional defense to employers and carriers. With the current focus on the detention and deportation of undocumented workers, it would not be a surprise to see the federal government and more states revising their workers' compensation statutes to deny workers' compensation benefits to undocumented workers in this country.

January 6, 2026 What Do You Think? Employers may have to provide workers’ compensation benefits when an employee is injured while driving for the company. But is that also true when an employee is injured solely because he was tired and fell asleep at the wheel? A case involving an ADT patrol officer addresses that question. The patrol officer fell asleep while responding to a call. He hit a car in front of him, causing the airbags to deploy. He sought workers’ compensation benefits for his head and leg injuries. A hearing officer denied the claim on the basis that the injuries did not arise out of employment. The claimant challenged the denial, claiming his injuries fell under the “street-risk rule.” To be compensable, an injury must occur in the course and scope of employment and arise out of employment. Under the street-risk rule, an injury that occurs while an employee is driving arises out of employment only if: The employee's duties require a presence on public streets; and  The injury was caused by a risk inherent to traveling on streets. Did the patrol officer’s injuries arise out of his employment? A. No.  The cause of the accident was not the job itself, but merely his dozing off at the wheel.  B. Yes.  His job required him to drive on public streets. If you selected Answer A, you agreed with the court in Bright v. ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 89262-COA (Nev. Ct. App. 12/18/25), which held that the claim was not compensable. To recover under the street-risk rule, an employee must show his injuries related to some risk involved within the scope of employment. But here, the injuries were caused “solely by the risk of falling asleep,” the appeals court said. Falling asleep behind the wheel should not be deemed a risk inherent to the streets, the court said, but instead should be treated as a non-job risk more like a medical condition. Further, this was not a case where the claimant pointed to some actual risk of the road as causing the accident. Had he, for example, established that he fell asleep due to some condition of employment, such as overly long hours, he might have had a compensable claim.  The court affirmed the denial of the claim.