Source: http://hcbatampabay.blogspot.com/2016/
Timestamp: 2017-12-11 19:00:22
Document Index: 648730292

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 668', '§ 815', '§ 668', '§ 668', '§ 668', '§ 501', '§ 1346', '§ 2733', '§ 3721']

LAWYER MAGAZINE Online Edition: 2016
Elder Law: Recent Amendment Allows Health Care Surrogates Authority to Act Immediately
By Jacqueline O. Ellett
You don’t have to be a doctor to know the aging process varies significantly from one person to the next. Some aging individuals are first confronted with a physical disability, while others face cognitive impairment long before experiencing physical ailments. Just as the status of a physical disability may fluctuate, so too may the capacity of a person diagnosed with certain mental conditions, such as dementia. Before the legislature amended section 765.202, Florida Statutes, this past summer, a health care surrogate could not act on behalf of the principal until the principal was determined incapacitated. This hard and fast approach created headaches for those acting on behalf of principals with fluctuating capacity levels because it necessitated a redetermination of incapacity each time a surrogate needed to make a medical decision for the principal.
But with the recent amendment to section 765.202, which went into effect on October 1, 2015, a principal may now give his or her health care surrogate immediate authority to act even though the principal may still have capacity. In the event a health care surrogate disagrees with a competent principal’s health care decision, the principal’s wishes control the outcome.
The amended statute also provides that the principal may allow his or her health care surrogate to access and receive a competent principal’s medical records and health care information. This authority may be given to a surrogate exclusively or in conjunction with the power to make health care decisions for a competent principal. Granting the surrogate permission to access this information at all times allows the surrogate to stay apprised of developments in the principal’s condition. Moreover, advancing the principal’s medical information to the surrogate better prepares the surrogate to make difficult health care decisions on behalf of the principal.
The amendment also benefits a principal who may be faced with navigating new or confusing treatment options. The legislature added a finding to the statute that plainly states that “some competent adults want a health care surrogate to assist them with making medical decisions.” As medical technology and treatments advance, certain principals will greatly benefit from a surrogate’s guidance when trying to determine the best course of action.
The amended statute includes a sample format to present these options to the principal. It provides that the surrogate does not have authority to access the principal’s health care information or make health care decisions until the principal becomes incapacitated, unless the principal has initialed the box explicitly granting that power. Forms that do not specifically address the ability of a surrogate to access medical information or to make health care decisions for a competent principal effectively require the principal to be incapacitated before the surrogate can act.
When a client arrives to execute his or her health care surrogate designation, the attorney should be prepared to discuss the options available to the client now. If asked by a client how to proceed with these elections, consider how each power operates in light of the circumstances unique to that client. An open dialogue with your client addressing these factors should guide him or her to an appropriate decision.
Posted by HCBA at 7:57 AM
By Cathy Kamm
A couple of years ago, a family friend, Tyler Crose, who happens to have Down syndrome, posted something on Facebook that made me cry: “Do. Say. The. R. Word. Me. Cry.” Words are powerful. Words are beautiful. Words hurt. The words Tyler wrote stuck with me and, in part, served as the inspiration for this article.
Many people know that I have a brother, John, who also has Down syndrome. John is “lower-functioning” than his friend Tyler, so my family ― most vocally and most often, my mother ― has been John’s voice through the years as we have advocated for his education, services, and quality of life. Although I have always felt confident advocating for John in these areas, discussing the “R-word” has always made me uncomfortable.
I remember one of the first times ― and the last ― I used the “R-word” to refer to something negatively. I was a young teen, and I will never forget how my dad’s face looked like I had slapped him. He immediately yelled at me that I was to never use that word in that manner again. He didn’t have to explain why. Even though I was using the word just like many others as a common slang term and “didn’t mean to” offend John or the many other people who live with disabilities every day, I did.
Tyler is brave. Tyler’s “crusade” to stop the use of the “R-word” leads him to speak up like my dad did when he hears someone say it. I am not brave. Despite the sting I feel when I hear someone use the “R-word” derogatively, I haven’t found the right approach to explain why there are so many better ways to make a point in a way that doesn’t belittle and demean a large population of incredible people. So this is my chance.
Posted by HCBA at 7:56 AM
Corporate Counsel: Florida Law Provides Businesses Civil Remedy for Hacking
By Jason Pill
As splashy headlines of corporate hacking and cybersecurity theft continue to make front-page news, businesses are increasingly focused on protecting their critical digital assets. Legislators have taken note and passed Florida’s Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act (CADRA), which became effective October 1. §§ 668.801-805, Fla. Stat. CADRA gives Florida businesses a new arrow in their quiver to combat unauthorized computer access by providing a cause of action for the recovery of monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
The legislature previously attempted to address “computer-related crime” by passing the Florida Computer Crimes Act (FCCA). §§ 815.01-07, Fla. Stat. The FCCA was largely a criminal statute that offered civil relief only after a criminal conviction. Recognizing some of the FCCA’s shortcomings, CADRA creates a cause of action for aggrieved businesses that suffer harm from unauthorized computer access by an individual who does not have access or exceeds his or her access to a business’s computer systems.
A CADRA violation occurs when an individual “knowingly and with intent to cause harm or loss”: (i) obtains information from a protected computer without authorization, causing resulting harm or loss; (ii) causes the transmission of a program, code, or command to a protected computer without authorization, causing resulting harm or loss; or (iii) traffics in any technological access barrier through which access to a protected computer may be obtained without authorization. § 668.803(1)-(3), Fla. Stat. “Without authorization” means access to a protected computer by someone who is not an “authorized user.” Authorized users can be directors, officers, employees, third-party agents, and other individuals with a business’s express permission to access protected computers. § 668.802(1), Fla. Stat. But this authorization ends upon the business’s revocation of permission by any means.
Importantly, CADRA’s protections extend only to a “protected computer,” which is defined as a computer that is “used in connection with the operation of a business and stores information, programs, or code in connection with the operation of the business” and “can be accessed only by employing a technological access barrier.” § 668.802(6), Fla. Stat. CADRA provides a non-exhaustive list of “technological access barriers” that must be employed, such as a “password, security code, token, key fob, access device, or similar measure.” Invariably, there will be additional technological measures that fall within this definition under the “similar measures” catchall, but in the absence of judicial guidance, businesses would be wise to rely on one or more of the enumerated “barriers” to ensure CADRA protection.
In the event of a CADRA violation, a plaintiff may recover actual damages, including lost profits and economic damages, recovery of the violator’s profits, and injunctive relief to prevent further violations and recover stolen information. The prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.
CADRA, which serves as yet another piece of the mosaic of legislation aimed at the emerging issue of cybersecurity and digital theft, comes a little over a year after the enactment of Florida’s Information Protection Act of 2014 (FIPA), § 501.171, Florida Statutes. The FIPA heightened the notification requirements for data breaches impacting Florida residents. These new laws reflect an increased emphasis on cybersecurity and are a harbinger of possible, additional legislation designed to protect businesses and consumers from evolving digital threats.
Posted by HCBA at 7:54 AM
Military & Veterans Affairs: The Impact of the OPM Data Breach
At some point in their careers, nearly all members of the military file a Standard Form 86 (SF 86) through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in order to have their personal backgrounds reviewed before they are granted a security clearance. The SF 86 requests personal information such as the member’s Social Security number, passport information, residence information for 10 years, schools attended, employment history, family member and relative information, foreign contacts and travel, criminal history, use of alcohol and illegal drugs, financial history, and any other associations. Understandably, OPM needs this information to properly assess whether an individual can be trusted with handling information of serious importance to the United States. Unfortunately, in April 2015, the OPM discovered that the background investigations of 4.2 million current and former federal government employees had been stolen by a massive cyber-penetration of OPM’s data files.
Two months later, OPM revised its estimate upward and concluded that data on up to 1.1 million fingerprints and approximately 21.5 million Social Security numbers from nearly 20 million individuals who applied for background investigations, as well as nearly 2 million non-applicants, was compromised, making it arguably one of the largest security breaches in federal history. While the OPM security breach mainly affected active-duty military personnel, because the security breach was so large, it includes veterans, spouses of active-duty members and veterans, and family members and associates of active-duty military members and veterans, as well as other federal employees.
Beginning in August 2015, OPM began providing individuals whose personal information had been compromised with instructions on what they needed to do to protect themselves. To its credit, OPM is offering those impacted with three years of credit monitoring, identity monitoring, identity theft insurance, and identity restoration services for themselves and their dependent children under the age of 18 through ID Experts, an identity theft protection company. For some of the services, the affected individual should be automatically enrolled. But some services offered require the person to register at https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity with a PIN the individual should have received from OPM through the mail.
Most military members or veterans impacted by this breach likely won’t suffer any damage and will just need to remain vigilant about their cyber identity now that their personal information has been compromised. However, attorneys advising military members, dependents, or veterans who are injured, even if enrolled and benefitting from the identity protection services offered through OPM, should review the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680; the Military Claims Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2733; and the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3721 to determine if the damages the individual suffered could be recovered with a properly filed claim under one of those statutes.
Posted by HCBA at 9:19 AM
By Erin E. Banks and J. Derek Kantaskas
Last year, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a key opinion in Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, 782 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2015), in which the court applied Florida law to determine the scope of coverage available under a post-1986 CGL policy issued by Mid-Continent Casualty Company (Mid-Continent) to a homebuilder, Cronk Duch. The Carithers sued Cronk Duch for the following construction defects: faulty electrical systems, incorrect application of exterior brick coatings, improperly installed tile, and a faulty balcony that permitted extensive water intrusion. Mid-Continent refused to defend defendant Cronk Duch. As a result, the Carithers and Cronk Duch entered into a consent judgment, which assigned Cronk Duch’s rights to the Carithers so the homeowners could pursue the judgment amount from Mid-Continent.
The Carithers filed an action against Mid-Continent, where the parties ultimately filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether Mid-Continent owed a duty to defend Cronk Duch in the underlying, initial litigation. That issue turned on what the proper trigger for determining whether property damage occurred during the policy period. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Carithers, finding that the proper “trigger” is the date of the actual damage (“injury-in-fact”), rather than when the damage is discovered or could have been discovered by reasonable inspection, as argued by Mid-Continent (“manifestation”). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Mid-Continent owed a duty to defend. The question of the proper “trigger” on coverage, however, appears to still be in doubt in Florida as the Eleventh Circuit limited its decision “to the facts of this case, and express[ed] no opinion on what the trigger should be where it is difficult (or impossible) to determine when the property was damaged.” Id. at 1247. Simply put, the court held that the district court “did not err in applying the injury-in-fact trigger in this case.” Id. at 1246.
After the duty to defend determination, the coverage issue was decided following a bench trial. The trial court found that, among other things, Mid-Continent was liable for the “rip and tear” costs to repair a defectively installed balcony (which was not property damage because it was the defective work of a subcontractor) because the balcony had to be replaced in order to repair damage to the garage (which was property damage). Essentially, the Carithers were entitled to the “rip and tear” damage of the balcony to get to the property damage.
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not err in awarding damages for the cost of repairing the balcony, finding that under Florida law the Carithers had a right to “the costs of repairing damage caused by the defective work.” Id. at 1249 (citing United States Fire Insurance Co. v. J.S.U.B., 979 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2008)). The Eleventh Circuit was not persuaded by Mid-Continent’s contention that the Carithers should not be able to recover for any defective work, even where repairing that work is a necessary cost of repairing work for which there is coverage.
Although Carithers is another decision pointing toward injury-in-fact trigger analysis, litigants will have to rip and tear their way through the next decision to find out for sure.
Posted by HCBA at 7:49 AM
Posted by HCBA at 7:43 AM
Appellate Law: Introducing Mary Beth Kuenzel, Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal
By Valeria Hendricks
The first clerk of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal was Joseph Gillen. Some 50 years later, Mary Beth Kuenzel, the cousin of Gillen’s granddaughter, has become the court’s sixth clerk. Although she revealed this bit of history at her induction ceremony, Mary Beth began her remarks on a somber note by recognizing Jim Birkhold's dedicated service and many contributions to the court before his sudden death.
Mary Beth is certainly qualified to lead the court’s clerk’s office. She has served the court for more than 20 years as a staff attorney. She has worked on numerous committees within the court, including its social media and practice preferences committees. Before joining the court, Mary Beth received her bachelor’s degree from FSU and worked for the Florida House of Representatives, where she eventually served as the director of communications in the Speaker's Office. She later attended Stetson University College of Law, graduating in 1993. Mary Beth lives in St. Petersburg with her husband, Kevin, an architect, artist, and attorney (in that order).
Although Mary Beth has been the clerk for only a short time, she credits the deputy clerks for their helpfulness, professionalism, and great institutional knowledge. Anyone who has practiced before the Second DCA can agree on the unsurpassed quality of the deputy clerks. During that short time, she has already identified two challenges facing the court and how practitioners can help.
The first challenge is the “proper classification of appeals and original proceedings, as they come in the door.” According to Mary Beth, that “determination is made in a vacuum, but it determines many things, from the type of record to filing deadlines.” Mary Beth says appellate lawyers can help the clerk’s office with the initial classification by explaining the basis for jurisdiction by a notice of appeal or petition and by setting forth the pertinent dates if, for example, rendition was tolled.
The second challenge Mary Beth identified is technology. Technology, of course, is a beneficial tool. But Mary Beth admits that it has made some things more complicated because the clerks are asked to help attorneys and pro se litigants figure out how to do things from an information technology standpoint. “It has also changed expectations about how quickly things should be done,” says Mary Beth. “The appellate court clerks are still in the development process of e-filing, e-records, and easy accessibility. We can receive e-filings, but we’re still sending out paper copies of orders and the like.” Mary Beth also observes, “As we approach electronic viewing of records (and we’re not there yet), appellate lawyers can help the clerk’s office and their clients by ensuring that confidential information is properly noted, redacted, and protected.”
The HCBA’s Appellate Practice Section welcomes Mary Beth Kuenzel as the clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal.
Posted by HCBA at 7:36 AM
In the interest of judicial economy, the Florida Supreme Court has promulgated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), which permits parties to present the undisputed facts of a case to the court for a pre-trial determination of whether the facts support a prima facie case of guilt. Rule 3.190(c)(4) is eminently useful in avoiding trial where the parties agree on the facts but disagree as to how the applicable law pertains to these facts.
Procedurally, the defendant must: (i) file a written motion outlining all of the facts of the case and (ii) execute an oath that these facts are true. The burden is on the defendant to specifically allege and swear to the undisputed facts in a motion to dismiss. The defendant may not swear that the facts are true and correct “to the best of my knowledge.” The penalty for perjury applies to the sworn motion. The state then must be given the opportunity to demur or traverse that defendant’s motion.
If the state disagrees with the defendant’s version of the facts or believes that the defendant omitted material facts, the state may file a traverse. If the state files a proper traverse, the court must deny the motion to dismiss. When filing a traverse, the state must deny with specificity the facts contained in the motion or allege with specificity the facts omitted.
If both parties agree on the material facts of the case but disagree on the application of the law, the state may file a demurrer. This permits the court to determine whether the facts support a prima facie case of guilt. An appropriate case for a demurrer might be where a defendant has been charged with carrying a concealed weapon (e.g., a knife), and the state and defendant agree to the description of the knife, but the defendant argues that the knife is a common pocket knife. The state may demur, agreeing to the dimensions of the knife but maintaining that it is a jury question as to whether the knife and the manner in which it was carried meet the statutory criteria for a weapon. The court may then turn to legal precedent and issue a ruling. A pre-trial ruling on this issue may save the court from trying the case because a ruling against the defendant may trigger a plea, whereas a ruling against the state would terminate the prosecution.
When considering a defendant’s motion to dismiss charges, all questions and inferences from the facts must be resolved in favor of the state. The trial court is not permitted to make factual determinations or consider either the weight of conflicting evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.
Pre-trial motion practice can further the interests of justice in an efficient manner. As such, the lawyers in my office are trained to prosecute cases with the utmost regard for expediency and judicial economy, while still seeking justice.
Posted by HCBA at 7:02 AM
HCBA President's Message: The Path from Service to Leadership: Doing Small Things with Great Love
Mother Teresa of Calcutta started with nothing and impacted millions of people through service and leadership. How did she do it? We know that Mother Teresa’s work started with one person – Mother Teresa refused to walk past a sick and dying person on a street in Calcutta, and in her own words, she helped just one person. With that start, Mother Teresa’s loving service to the poor eventually grew to a worldwide community of support for the poor, the hungry, the sick, and the homeless. Mother Teresa’s path to being one of the most respected and effective world leaders was grounded in service.
I met Mother Teresa twice as a teenager (first in 1985 and again 1988), and both times Mother Teresa impacted me powerfully with her example, words, and smile. Mother Teresa spoke about the power and gift of a smile – if you can give nothing else to another person, you can always give them a smile. I think about Mother Teresa’s powerful words almost every day. Mother Teresa’s inspirational teachings can be applied in so many areas of our lives:
Some of the greatest things about our legal community are the acts of service that our colleagues perform, often with little recognition or credit. I want to recognize four of our colleagues for their service and leadership in three very important areas.
Sacha Dyson, of Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A., and Lara LaVoie, of LaVoie & Kaizer, P.A., are currently the co-chairs of the HCBA Community Services Committee. This year, Sacha suggested that in addition to everything else the CSC does, the committee could adopt and lead the HCBA’s efforts to present The Florida Bar Benchmarks programs to the greater Tampa community. In recognition of the important role that attorneys play in adult civics education, The Florida Bar created Benchmarks: Raising the Bar on Civics Education, which provides presentations and activities that attorneys can use to teach adult civic and community groups about the government and the courts. Sacha has coordinated our efforts to train lawyers and to present topics at local libraries and in a series of presentations at USF! Meanwhile, Lara LaVoie and other committee leaders have been out in the community planning and implementing the CSC’s ongoing programs: Adopt a Veteran, Elves for Elders, Dining with Dignity, and a Pirate Plunder Party at A Kid’s Place. Thank you Sacha and Lara for your service and leadership!
In December at the Federal Bar Association (Tampa Chapter) Annual Meeting, Anne-Leigh Moe was sworn in as president of the chapter. I recall about eight years ago when Anne-Leigh first volunteered to serve on an FBA committee, and I have observed Anne-Leigh’s service to the FBA in many ways throughout the years. One pro bono service opportunity Anne-Leigh took on during this time was a civil rights (Bivens Act) case for a federal prisoner. United States District Judge Virginia Covington presided over the case, and at the annual meeting, Judge Covington presented Anne-Leigh with the FBA Pro Bono Award for Service and Excellence. Anne-Leigh’s path from service to leadership is a great example of the good things lawyers do for our community.
Kevin Johnson, also with Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A., recently led The Florida Bar’s efforts to create the Florida Bar Practice Resource Institute. The PRI was designed to tackle some key challenges that Florida lawyers face on issues related to technology and practice management. Kevin chaired The Florida Bar’s Special Committee on Technology and Office Resources to build a website that would deliver helpful content in five key focus areas: technology, management, marketing, accounting/finance, and new practice. The PRI went live in January 2015 at www.floridabar.org/PRI. The site has the most up-to-date information, available in several different formats that the end user can select based on whether he or she prefers to read written answers, listen to a podcast, watch a video, or even interact with a practice-management advisor via live chat. It also features a searchable Knowledge Base that contains multiple tips for working with common office software programs. The Special Committee on Technology and Office Resources is now a standing committee of The Florida Bar, and Kevin is the chair. The committee continues to improve the PRI website as it receives feedback from Florida Bar members. This is a great effort by The Florida Bar to help Florida lawyers, particularly small firms and solo practitioners.
Sacha, Lara, Anne-Leigh, and Kevin did not act alone in the areas where they serve. They have committee members, board members, or consultants who helped them achieve great things. But they did raise their hands – they did volunteer to serve – and that set them on the path to leadership. I would argue that they each found their path to leadership not by waiting for others to lead but by doing small things with great love – similar to feeding just one person – by serving others.