This was not the issue before the trial court in this case. 2 . The legislature’s objective was "to assure the quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to an injured worker and to facilitate the worker's return to gainful reemployment at a reasonable cost to the employer.” § 440.015. It determined that "a mutual renunciation of common-law rights and defenses by employers and employees” served that objective. Id. 3 . This conclusion finds additional support in the principle that the mere fact that a party is under a purely legal obligation arising outside of a contract — such as one imposed by a statute or the common law — does not render one a "contractor” entitled to immunity. See, e.g., Smith v. Manner’s Bay Condo. Ass’n, 789 So.2d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Sotomayor, 697 So.2d at 1008 (A "common law
recognizing that the duty arises not from the terms of the insurance contract but from an obligation imposed in law as a result of the special relationship holding that only factors specifically prohibited by the sentencing guidelines cannot form the basis for a downward departure holding that an obligation imposed by statute cannot form the basis for a statutory employer relationship holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation