NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

JULIE ATHA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-131 

 ) 

ALLEN P. VAN OVERBEKE, D.M.D., P.A., ) 

a Florida Corporation, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed March 10, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Robert A. Foster, Jr., 

Judge. 

Jeffrey E. Appel and Claude McEuen 

Harden, III, of Appel Harden Law Group, 

Lakeland, for Appellant. 

S. Gordon Hill and Jeffrey J. Wilcox of 

Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, 

for Appellee. 

SILBERMAN, Judge. 

Julie Atha seeks review of the order dismissing her second amended 

complaint against her former employer, Allen P. Van Overbeke, D.M.D., P.A., with 

prejudice. The trial court determined that Atha failed to plead a facially sufficient 

violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2011), for workers' compensation 
- 2 -

retaliation. We conclude that the complaint as a whole pleaded a legally sufficient 

violation of section 440.205 and reverse. 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) provides that in order to be legally 

sufficient, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See also Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. Astro 

Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 137 So. 3d 613, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In ruling on a 

motion to dismiss for failure to plead a facially sufficient claim, the trial court is limited to 

a consideration of the allegations within the four corners of the complaint and is required 

to accept those allegations as true. Id. The court's dismissal of a complaint for failure 

to state a cause of action is reviewed de novo. Id. 

Section 440.205 provides, "No employer shall discharge, threaten to 

discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee's valid claim 

for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers' Compensation 

Law." To establish a prima facie case of workers' compensation retaliation under 

section 440.205, the plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) a statutorily 

protected activity, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection 

between the statutorily protected activity and the adverse employment action. Andrews 

v. Direct Mail Express, Inc., 1 So. 3d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Russell v. KSL 

Hotel Corp., 887 So. 2d 372, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). 

The operative complaint in this case is Atha's second amended complaint. 

Atha alleged that she had worked full time for Van Overbeke as a dental assistant since 

June 2009. On November 21, 2012, she suffered an injury to her right hand and elbow 

at work. Atha requested medical treatment and payment for lost wages under the 
- 3 -

Workers' Compensation Act. Van Overbeke's insurance carrier evaluated Atha's claim 

and authorized medical treatment for her work-related injuries on November 27, 2012. 

Atha had surgery on February 18, 2013, and she received temporary 

disability benefits under the Act from the time of surgery through her recovery. Atha's 

physician released her to return to full-time work as a dental assistant on June 6, 2013. 

Van Overbeke refused to return Atha to full-time status and offered her only one shift 

per week. Three weeks later, Van Overbeke terminated Atha's employment despite the 

fact that it still had a position available that Atha could perform. 

The second amended complaint alleged that Atha's request for workers' 

compensation benefits constituted statutorily protected activity, and there is no dispute 

that Atha met the pleading requirement for the first element. As for the second element, 

Van Overbeke concedes that the reduction in hours and subsequent termination from 

employment constitute adverse employment actions. 

It is the third element, or the causal connection element, that is at issue 

here. A plaintiff can establish the causal connection element "by showing the protected 

activity and the adverse action are not completely unrelated." Ortega v. Eng'g Sys. 

Tech., Inc., 30 So. 3d 525, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Russell, 887 So. 2d at 

379. The temporal connection between the protected activity and the adverse 

employment action in itself might be sufficient to establish a causal connection, but the 

temporal proximity must be "close." Ortega, 30 So. 3d at 529 (quoting Higdon v. 

Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004)); see also Edwards v. Niles Sales & 

Serv., Inc., 439 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1229 (S.D. Fla. 2006) ("The cases that accept mere 

temporal proximity between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an 
- 4 -

adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of causality to establish a prima facie

case uniformly hold that the temporal proximity must be 'very close.' " (quoting Clark 

Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273 (2001))). 

In her second amended complaint, Atha made the following additional 

allegations to establish the causal connection element: 

12. Immediately following her injury, however, [Van 

Overbeke] began an unlawful course of intimidation and 

coercion by intentionally refusing to allow [Atha] to continue 

to work despite having work available that [Atha] was able to 

perform. 

. . . . 

18. [Van Overbeke's] action of discharging [Atha] was in 

retaliation for [Atha] engaging in her statutorily protected 

right to workers' compensation benefits and in violation of 

Section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2011). 

Taken in conjunction with the ultimate facts alleged in the remainder of the 

second amended complaint, Atha's allegations can be read to establish that Van 

Overbeke was aware of her request for workers' compensation benefits from the time 

she stopped working to obtain treatment for her work-related injuries. From that time 

until it terminated her employment, Van Overbeke engaged in actions that 

demonstrated a negative attitude toward Atha's workers' compensation claim. When 

Atha was released to return to full-time work, Van Overbeke reduced her hours and 

then terminated her employment in retaliation for filing her workers' compensation claim. 

We conclude that these allegations, which we are required to accept as 

true, are sufficient to establish that the statutorily protected activity (Atha's request for 

workers' compensation benefits) and the adverse employment action (the reduction in 
- 5 -

hours and subsequent termination from employment) are not completely unrelated.1 Cf. 

Hornfischer v. Manatee Cty. Sheriff's Office, 136 So. 3d 703, 709-10 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2014) (holding that the plaintiff established the causal connection element due to "the 

questionable nature of the reasons offered for [the plaintiff's] discharge, together with 

the e-mails reflecting a negative attitude by the [defendant's] agents toward [the plaintiff] 

and his claims"). Atha thus pleaded a legally sufficient violation of section 440.205, and 

the trial court erred by dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice. 

 Reversed and remanded. 

CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ., Concur. 

 

 1In light of our decision, we need not address Atha's argument that the 

temporal connection between Atha's request for workers' compensation benefits and 

the reduction in hours and subsequent termination from employment in itself is close 

enough to establish a causal connection.