2024-2283•Service American Indemnity Company/PMA Insurance Group and Robert B. Hess Racing, Inc. v. Bulfrano Andres Bahena
Service American Indemnity Company/PMA Insurance Group and Robert B. Hess Racing, Inc. v. Bulfrano Andres Bahena
2024-2283Fladistctapp1
Full text
FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL S TATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2024-2283 _____________________________ S ERVICE A MERICAN I NDEMNITY C OMPANY /PMA I NSURANCE GROUP and R OBERT B. H ESS R ACING, INC ., Appellants, v. B ULFRANO A NDRES B AHENA , Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Michael J. Ring, Judge. Date of Accident: July 23, 2023. November 26, 2025 PER C URIAM. Because competent, substantial evidence in the record supports the Judge of Compensation Claims’ findings that Appellee met the definition of employee and did not meet the definition of independent contractor, the amended final compensation order is affirmed. See § 440.02(18)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023) (defining employee under Workers’ Compensation Law); § 440.02(18)(d)1. (defining independent contractor). OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS and B ILBREY , JJ., concur.
2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Jodi K. Middleton of Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando; Richard N. Asfar of Almazan Law, Tampa; K. Kay Dodd Anderson, and Rene E. Hidalgo of Almazan Law, Miami, for Appellants. Michael J. Winer of Winer Law Group, Tampa; Richard James Dolan, II, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D2024-2283 SERVICE AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY/PMA INSURANCE GROUP and ROBERT B. HESS RACING, INC., Appellants, Vv. BULFRANO ANDRES BAHENA, Appellee. On appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Michael J. Ring, Judge. Date of Accident: July 23, 2028. November 26, 2025 PER CURIAM. Because competent, substantial evidence in the record supports the Judge of Compensation Claims’ findings that Appellee met the definition of employee and did not meet the definition of independent contractor, the amended final compensation order is affirmed. See § 440.02(18)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023) (defining employee under Workers’ Compensation Law); § 440.02(18)(d)1. (defining independent contractor). OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS and BILBREY, JJ., concur. Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. Jodi K. Middleton of Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando; Richard N. Asfar of Almazan Law, Tampa; K. Kay Dodd Anderson, and Rene E. Hidalgo of Almazan Law, Miami, for Appellants. Michael J. Winer of Winer Law Group, Tampa; Richard James Dolan, II, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.