Skip to main content

Langevin v. First Union National Bank

Fla. Dist. Ct. App.March 3, 2011No. No. 1D10-4308
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Kahn, Rowe, Thomas
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the denial of permanent total disability benefits, finding that the claimant failed to satisfy the five-step sequential inquiry required to establish catastrophic injury under Florida law, despite noting the trial judge erred on res judicata and law of the case grounds.

What This Ruling Means

**Langevin v. First Union National Bank: Disability Benefits Claim Denied** This case involved a First Union National Bank employee named Langevin who sought permanent total disability benefits after suffering what they claimed was a catastrophic workplace injury. The employee argued they were completely unable to work due to their injury and deserved full disability compensation. The court ruled against the employee and upheld a lower court's decision to deny the disability benefits. The appeals court found that Langevin failed to meet Florida's strict five-step legal test required to prove a "catastrophic injury." Under Florida law, workers must satisfy all five specific criteria to qualify for permanent total disability benefits, and the court determined Langevin's case fell short of these requirements. **What this means for workers:** This ruling highlights how difficult it can be to qualify for permanent total disability benefits in Florida. Workers need to understand that claiming a catastrophic injury requires meeting very specific legal standards - it's not enough to simply show you're injured or unable to work. If you're considering a disability claim, it's crucial to gather comprehensive medical evidence and understand your state's specific requirements, as the legal bar for these benefits is set quite high.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.