Wow. This one is a doozy.

For years, the assumption about the Statute of Limitations (SOL) was “form over substance.”  A Claimant has 2 years from the date of accident and then 1 year from the last date of provided benefits to file a PFB.  If he fails to comply within those time periods, he is barred forever from bringing a claim against the E/C.  This was one of the first blog entries I wrote.  You can read about the basics of SOL here.  (For a video reference, click here.)

If you read s. 440.19 (the SOL statute) not once does it mention that the SOL tolls over a claim for attorney’s fees.  The whole premise is based on giving the E/C and Claimant a ticking clock from the last date of benefits.  Attorneys fees have nothing to do with the SOL.

Except now. . . (more…)

It ended with a whimper rather than a roar. 

On Wednesday, the Florida Supreme Court, with zero fanfare, denied jurisdiction for the Kauffman appeal.  You can review the online docket here.  Just enter the case number as “SC11-661”.  This officially ends the appeal process for Kauffman.

You can read my analysis of the First DCA’s decision here and my prior analysis here.   I do not believe the Claimant’s bar was ever prepared to show the Court why a Claimant cannot find representation under the current statute.  The constitutional arguments still did not hold water. (more…)

Just a quick development on Kauffman: Claimant is seeking discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court, as of March 30.  Her attorneys are writing briefs to the Court to convince them to hear the case. 

Keep in mind, the Supremes do not have to hear the case, but the Court does have the discretion to review a decision of a District Court of Appeal that expressly construes a provision of the state or federal consititution.   Once again, the Supremes do not have a duty to hear the case, just the option to hear it.

As you know, in the Kauffman decision, the First DCA denied Claimant’s constitutional arguments based on their previous decisions of the 2003 amendments to the fee provision of Chapter 440. 

I will provide more details as I understand them.

In a sparsely written, four page order (the listing of the attorneys involved in the case seems longer than the actual opinion), the First DCA affirmed the JCC’s opinion, thereby rejecting the Claimant bar’s arguments that the 7/1/09 changes to the fee statute are unconstitutional.

You can read the entire opinion here. Analysis after the click.

(more…)

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know my feelings about the fraud defense.  It is a helpful tool in an E/C’s assortment of defense strategies, but it should be used after thoughtful deliberations.  The First DCA has limited the definition of fraud in hopes to curb the rampant use at the trial court level.  Yet, the Court refused to apply a reverse penalty to E/C’s when they commit fraud.

Now, it appears there is a penalty for E/C’s who use the fraud defense and lose at trial.

(more…)

During the last Workers’ Compensation Convention in Orlando, I learned of a new constitutional test case the Claimant’s bar was appealing that dealt head on with the 7/1/09 changes to the attorney’s fee provision in s. 440.34.

And last week, in the case Kauffman v. Community Inclusions, Inc., both parties presented their case at oral arguments.  However, as with most oral arguments, the First DCA judges determined the focus of the appeal and the direction of the arguments.   You can watch the video here.

(more…)

So, this is my second appellate win!  I wrote about this back in October.  The controversy centered around a mistake by the E/C’s computer system when it accidentally cut Claimant off from voluntary PTD payments.  Claimant filed a Petition for Benefits for reinstatement.  By the time the E/C corrected the error and paid past PTD with penalties and interest, more than 30 days passed and we owed a fee.  You can read the decision here.

The issue on appeal was: how much were the benefits that Claimant’s attorney secured?  The answer after the jump. . .

(more…)

It was too good to be true.  This past July, I wrote of a proposed change by DOAH to the Rules of Procedure for W/C Adjudications that would put a time limit of when Claimant attorneys could file a Motion for Attorney’s Fees against an E/C.  The proposed rule change, specifically to Rule 60Q-6.107, was as follows:

“(4) Any party seeking an order determing the entitlement to or amount of attorney’s fees or costs shall file the motion therfor within 365 days after the provision of benefits, dismissal of claim, judicial order, or appellate mandate from which the movant claims attorney’s fees or costs are due.  Untimely motions or petitions for attorney’s fees or costs will be dismissed.”

It looks like a compromise was made and, effective October 31, there will be a new wrinkle towards Claimant attorney fee claims. (more…)

UPDATED! I forgot to include the this link to the video of my oral arguments.  I believe you need Windows Media Player to watch.  Enjoy!

In my last blog entry, I wrote of a pending oral argument for an appeal I was handled.  I did not want to publicly comment on the issue since it was a pending matter before the First DCA.  So, allow me some space to explain what the issues were.

At issue was the amount of a Carrier paid fee to a Claimant attorney where the only efforts to secure any benefits was simply filing a Petition. (more…)

For many of the changes in Workers’ Compensation, the saying would go “the legislature giveth, the legislature taketh.”  That saying remains true.  . . until the First DCA says otherwise.

In another precedent setting case, the Court finds that, for accidents after the 1994 changes, an implantation of a prosthetic device continuously tolls the Statute of Limitations since it is “remedial treatment.” 

But, what’s that you say?  Didn’t the Legislature specifically, and intentionally, remove prosthetic devices from s. 440.19 back in 1994?  Once again, that remains true. . . until the First DCA says otherwise.

(more…)