Yuli Kotler | Saint Petersburg Workers' Compensation Lawyer

A client was injured on the job after falling from a scaffold. His Employer's (Sub-Contractor) Carrier denied Workers' Comp coverage. We filed claims against his Employer, their Work Comp Carrier, the General Contractor, the GC's Work Comp Carrier. After many months of litigation, we agreed to a large settlement for my client.

By maintaining a client-first obligation.

Open communication with their lawyer.

Extremely. A good lawyer will provide insight to their client about their opposition as well as the judiciary.

Analysis of the options that the client has in their case.

Description of the accident; when the accident occurred; where the accident occurred; and when the accident was reported.

I always provide my client with my cell-phone number and I can be reached anytime by phone, text or email. I also practiced defense, before switching sides, so I have an in-depth knowledge of how the Insurance Carrier defends cases.

Being able to take the stress off the shoulders of my clients.

I enjoy architecture, skiing, snowboarding, sports, and cooking.

• Member | Florida State Bar Association

• Kotler Law has taken many cases to verdict, firmly establishing its position as one of the state’s elite Claimant’s Workers’ Compensation firms at both the trial and appellate levels.

• Michael Emmanuel v. ADP Totalsource Co XXI
  In the Florida workers compensation case of Michael Emmanuel v. ADP Totalsource Co XXI, the claimant was initially compensated for an industrial injury, though the E/C later denied it. At a final hearing, the claimant was granted compensation, temporary partial disability, and a one time change of physician. The E/C’s IME defended the E/C on the grounds that the claimant’s pre-existing condition was the major contributing cause (MCC), not the industrial injury. The E/C authorized a doctor for a one-time visit, but instructed the doctor not to inform the claimant of the MCC or whether they should continue treatment. This interfered with the claimant’s medical treatment, causing the JCC to rule in favor of the claimant. Update appointment with doctor GRANTED; Attorney fees GRANTED

• Dagoberto De Armas v. Armstrong Air & Heating
  Dagoberto De Armas v. Armstrong Air & Heating and Amtrust North America of Florida was a Florida workers compensation case concerning whether the claimant should be transferred to a second independent medical examiner (IME). The claimant suffered from hypertension, and defended that their initial doctor was a qualified examiner of the injury. The E/C claimed otherwise, but did not provide any evidence or testimony that the first doctor was unqualified. Therefore, the E/C’s request for a second IME was denied, and the claimant was allowed to continue seeing their initial IME doctor. Second IME DENIED; Motion to continue final hearing DENIED

• Andrew Johnson v. Brevard County Board of Commissioners
  Andrew Johnson v. Brevard County Board of Commissioners was an appeal of a Florida Workers Compensation case concerning the use of fat burner supplements. The claimant consumed Performix and Cellucor C4, causing him to suffer from a heart attack. The E/C’s IME testified that the heart attack was caused by the two supplements, which can cause cardiac issues. The claimant’s IME testified differently, saying that he did not know the cause of the heart attack, but did not believe it to be a result of the supplements. An EMA was appointed due to the difference in medical opinions. The EMA concluded that the supplements had to be the cause of the heart attack, since the claimant had no pre-existing conditions. The condition itself was determined not to be caused by a work-related factor, making the claimant ineligible for compensation. Compensation DENIED; TTD/TPD DENIED; Authorization of medical care DENIED; Attorney’s fees DENIED

• Kotler Law Blog

• Yuli Kotler
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Avvo | Yuli Kotler