These case summaries are intended to serve as information only. They are not to be applied to current cases absent legal analysis of the actual decision.

Attorneys' Fees

Kauffman v. Community Inclusions, Inc., 57 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)

The claimant’s attorney secured benefits in the amount of $4,417.03 and the Judge of Compensation Claims found that a reasonable hourly fee would amount to $25,075.00. However, the Judge ruled that the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act limited the claimant to a statutory fee on the benefits obtained, rather than an hourly fee. Therefore, the Judge awarded a fee of $684.41. The claimant appealed and argued that the statute was unconstitutional; however, the First District Court of Appeal rejected this argument and upheld the trial Judge’s decision. This case applies to accident dates after 7/1/09.

Prevailing Party Costs

Punsky v. Clay County Board of County Commissioners, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D 688 (3/31/11)

The Employer/Carrier prevailed at trial and the Judge of Compensation Claims ordered the claimant to pay the Employer/Carrier’s taxable costs (depositions, court reporters and independent medical examinations). The claimant appealed the ruling. He argued that the Employer/Carrier’s costs should be limited to $250.00 based on a separate statutory provision, which the First District Court of Appeal held did not apply to a workers’ compensation claim before the Division of Administrative Hearings and instead only applies when the Employer/Carrier prevails on a claim brought in “law or admiralty.” Therefore, the First District Court of Appeal rejected this argument. The claimant also argued the Judge of Compensation Claims did not have jurisdiction to award costs and only had jurisdiction to enforce an award of costs. The First District Court of Appeal rejected this argument. The claimant also argued that the statute was unconstitutional in that if the claimant is unable to pay the costs, the Judge could dismiss further Petitions and thereby limit his access to court. However, the First District Court of Appeal found no record evidence to support this argument. Therefore, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the Judge’s decision.

DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL ADVICE. ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY (“ZENITH”) MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, GUARANTEES OR CONDITIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS OR REGULATIONS AND SUCH COMPLIANCE IS ULTIMATELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYER. ZENITH EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BASED UPON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PRESENTATION OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED IN SUCH INFORMATION.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS NOT APPLICABLE IN ALL JURISDICTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES. THE JURISDICTION YOU ARE IN, CHANGES IN THE LAW OR REGULATIONS, OR THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL CASE MAY RESULT IN DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW OR PROCESS THAN THOSE PRESENTED HEREIN.