under an exception to the statute was either waived or resolved in the workers’ compensation case. Neither of these circumstances apply in the instant case. a. Compensability is not an issue. Vallejos elected his remedy by filing a petition for benefits, receiving payments, and negotiating a settlement. All of the following cases that Vallejos cites can be distinguished because they deal with workers’ compensation claims where the compensability of the claim or the status of the employee at the time of the injury was contested: Vasquez v. Sorrells Grove Care, Inc., 962 So.2d 411, 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (noting that the carrier contested the compensability of the claim and whether Vasquez was an employee); Hernandez v. United Contractors Corp., 766 So.2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>); Lowry v. Logan, 650 So.2d 653, 658 (Fla. 1st
recognizing that cue may be based on a showing that there was no evidence before the adjudicator that could have supported a denial of the claim on the merits that is that all of the evidence militated in support of the claim holding that because the carrier contested the compensability of the claim and took the position that there was no evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course and scope of hernandezs employment there was no conclusion on the merits holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment