On June 11, 2026, the first DCA released its straightforward opinion in Koren v. City of Kissimmee, ruling that where Claimant challenged only one among multiple independent grounds on which the JCC based denial, such appeal could not succeed.
https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489883/opinion/Opinion_2023-2428.pdf
The nuanced and complex facts however evidently inspired "our own" Judge, M. K. Thomas (born in bred in a Workers’ Compensation environment), to write an extraordinary concurring opinion. Because concurring opinions do not have the force and effect of the Court’s holding, it is easy for all but the legal purist to dismiss them, however, this one is different.
Judge Thomas used this case to address ambiguities still surrounding the 120-day rule and the resulting opinion is now a primer for anyone who either harbors or will one day be faced with questions concerning whether and when the ‘120 day’ rule applies—or doesn’t--i.e., when to use it and when to lose it.
Examples: can a subsequently emerging condition in an already accepted case trigger the rule? (Yes.) And if it is triggered generally, was it triggered under the specific facts? Suppose an authorized evaluation report leads E/C to deny more than 120 days after receipt of the report? Does any evaluation, alone, start the time or is something else needed (spoiler alert: yes--express invocation of the rule). But what if it is not invoked, and the carrier denies ‘late?’ In short: the opinion is recommended for every adjuster’s and practitioner’s ‘cheat sheet’ resources.
The 120-day rule has vexed many a practitioner (and Judge), but now, Judge Thomas endeavors to address virtually every application in one handy reference for benefit of system stakeholders. It is recommended you obtain and hold onto her concurring opinion for better understanding now, or use for a ‘rainy day.’
(usual closer language)
H. George Kagan, P.A.
[email protected]
