Skip to Content

Where Tradition Meets the Future®


David Hamilton Roos serves as Chair of the firm’s Workers’ Compensation division. He represents insurance carriers, third-party administrators, and employers in the defense of workers’ compensation claims. David has authored many articles, including:

  • “Recent Legal Developments in Workers’ Compensation Law,” published in the Winter 2011 Trial Advocate Quarterly;
  • “Defending A Workers’ Compensation Claim on the Basis of Fraudulent Identity Under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes,” published in the Fall 2004 Trial Advocate Quarterly; and, 
  • Co-authored the article “Using False Identification to Obtain Employment,” featured in the October 2008 edition of the Henderson Franklin’s employment law newsletter.

David formerly served and currently serves on Henderson Franklin’s Executive Committee. Naples Illustrated named David a “Top Lawyer” in Workers Compensation law in the years 2018-2023.

Prior to joining Henderson Franklin, David lived in Coral Springs and practiced in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, representing insurance companies involving first-party homeowner property and casualty defense claims. David was born in Fort Myers and grew up in Cape Coral. He is married to Esther and has two daughters, Abigail and Hannah, and a son, Josiah.

Professional And Civic Affiliations

David is a member of the Lee County Bar Association and The Florida Bar (Workers’ Compensation and Trial Law Sections).  He previously served as Chairman of the Workers’ Compensation Section of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association (FDLA). 

Representative Matters

  • Represented a workers’ compensation insurance carrier concerning a claim for temporary partial disability (“TPD”) indemnity benefits. The carrier prevailed at the final hearing and the claimant then appealed the decision to the First District Court of Appeals (“DCA”). The DCA had previously written several conflicting opinions on whether receiving unemployment benefits result in an “offset” or “credit” or “reduce” of the amount of TPD indemnity benefits a claimant can receive at the same time he/she is receiving TPD indemnity benefits. This case resolved the prior conflicting decisions in favor of the employer and carrier thus reducing liability for exposure for TPD indemnity benefits when an injured employee is also receiving unemployment benefits. The DCA also clarified that this defense is not an affirmative defense which must be specifically plead in accordance with procedural rules.

Privacy Notification

By using this website, you agree to use of cookies. We use cookies to provide you with a great experience and to help our website run effectively.