�鶹ֱ��

A recent decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Steak ‘N Shake v. Spears,₁ highlights the import of Florida’s workers’ compensation adjudicative framework and may serve to prevent highly emotional claims for work-related mental distress from making their way to a jury.

Amber Nicole Spears was working as a server at a Steak ‘N Shake restaurant when she was held at gunpoint by an intruder who grabbed her neck, forced her into a back room, and repeatedly threatened to kill her. Spears claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the encounter, which indisputably occurred in the course and scope of her employment. 

Following this traumatic incident, Spears did not pursue workers’ compensation benefits or otherwise invoke Florida’s workers’ compensation adjudicative process to determine if her injuries were “compensable” (i.e., whether her employer owed her workers’ compensation benefits for the same). Instead, she initiated suit directly in circuit court, bringing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against her employer. Notably, Spears did not bring claims based on any alleged physical injuries suffered as a result of the incident.   

In response, Steak ‘N Steak claimed that Spears’ claims were barred by the doctrine of workers’ compensation immunity because she had not made a request for benefits and therefore had not taken the first step to determine if her injuries were compensable.

The circuit (trial) court rejected this argument, explaining that, because Spears had not alleged any physical injury, her claims fell outside Florida’s workers’ compensation framework and thus were not compensable as a matter of law. In reaching is conclusion, the trial court relied on the language of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act, which indicates:

A mental or nervous injury due to stress, fright, or excitement only is not an injury by accident arising out of the employment. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow for the payment of benefits under this chapter for mental or nervous injuries without an accompanying physical injury requiring medical treatment. A physical injury resulting from mental or nervous injuries unaccompanied by physical trauma requiring medical treatment shall not be compensable under this chapter.

§ 440.093(1), Fla. Stat. 

Steak ‘N Shake appealed the decision to the Fifth District Court of Appeal (DCA). In June of 2025, the Fifth DCA issued its opinion, holding that an employee may not file a tort claim against her employer without first seeking a determination of whether she is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits from either a workers’ compensation carrier or a judge of compensation claims.

More specifically, the court looked at the statutory definition of “compensable” — which Section 440.13(1)(d) defines as a “determination by a carrier or judge of compensation claims that a condition suffered by an employee results from an injury arising out of and in the course of employment” — to hold that a trial court judge does not have statutory authority to determine whether a given injury is or is not compensable under Florida’s workers’ compensation scheme. 

In Spears’ case, because she never filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, no carrier or administrative judge ever reached a determination as to the compensability of her alleged injury. Even though Spears alleged mental distress unaccompanied by physical injury, the court considered this a “factual matter” that needed to first be reviewed and adjudicated within the workers’ compensation framework because mental distress accompanied by physical injury requiring medical treatment is in fact compensable under Section 440.093.This was especially true given that Spears admitted the gunman had grabbed her neck and shoulders, conduct which could have conceivably given rise to physical injury. Moreover, because no determination of compensability was made by a statutorily designated fact-finder, Steak ‘N Shake remained able to avail itself of workers’ compensation exclusivity immunity as a defense. 

The import of this decision is that employees who wish to bring claims in tort against their employer must, as a matter of course, first seek remedial relief through the workers’ compensation system and may not first bring the issue of potential compensability to a trial court judge. This is true even with respect to claims of emotional distress or trauma — claims which have potential to play on jurors’ emotions and result in high verdicts. While claims of mental distress that are not ultimately accompanied by physical injuries may not ultimately be compensable, Florida employers should nonetheless remember the Steak ‘N Shake decision and push for the initial decision of compensability to be determined by a carrier or administrative judge.
 

[1] Case No. 5D2024-0148 (Fla. 5th DCA)