JCC Lacks Jurisdiction to Disapprove Costs Paid from Lump-Sum Settlement
In 2001, the legislature amended s.440.20(11), Fla. Stat., to repeal the JCC's former duty to review a proposed lump-sum settlement of an injured worker's right to future benefits to ensure that it was in the best interests of the worker. See Ch. 2001-91, s.17, Laws of Fla. Under the revised statute, in cases where the injured worker is represented by counsel, the JCC has jurisdiction only to review the amount of attorney's fees paid by the claimant to his attorney for obtaining the settlement and to ensure that any child support arrearages owed by the worker are paid from the proceeds of the settlement.
But what happens if the JCC approves the amount of attorney's fees but does not approve of the amount of costs being charged to the worker by his attorney? Can the JCC refuse to approve both the attorney's fees and the costs? That's what the JCC did in this order.
But the First District Court of Appeal has now said no. In Eshlibi v. Consolidated Box Manufacturing, decided on 7/31/2001, the Court said that "a JCC lacks statutory authority to deny the attorney's fees based upon costs charged to the claimant" in lump-sum settlement cases.
Can we now enter into side stipulations for employer/carrier paid fees without JCC approval? More importantly, can both parties enter into a side stipulation for employer/carrier paid fee that allows fees above statutory guidelines?
Just my opinion, of course, but I don't think the decision goes that far. Not only does s.440.34(1) continue to require JCC approval of any claimant's attorney's fee - as opposed to "costs" in a lump-sum settlement - s.440.105(3)(c) actually makes it "unlawful" for any attorney to accept a fee that has not received JCC approval.
And with a 2003 amendment to s.921.0022(3), the legislature apparently intended to punish a violation of s.440.105(3)(c) as a 3rd degree felony. [I say "apparently" because s.440.105(3)(c) was renumbered from (3)(b) in 2003, but the 2003 amendment to s.921.0022(3) continues to reference "s.440.105(3)(b)" when setting forth the punishment for "receipt of fee or consideration without approval by judge of compensation claims." See Ch. 2003-412, s.36, Laws of Fla.].