Posted on May 7, 2008 by David McCranie

Costs Awardable Against Non-Prevailing Claimant Even Where JCC Fails to Reserve Jurisdiction

As I discussed here, one of the legislative changes enacted in 2003 concerns the issue of costs in workers' compensation litigation.  Formerly, §440.34(3) authorized an award of costs only in favor of a prevailing claimant in a workers' compensation proceeding.  The 2003 amendment to the statute, however, authorizes an award of costs in favor of the prevailing party.

 

Construing this amendment in Guckenberger v. Seminole County, decided on 4/23/2008, the First DCA held that the JCC could award costs in favor of the prevailing employer/servicing agent and against the non-prevailing claimant even though he had not reserved jurisdiction to do so in his final compensation order.  The claimant's challenge to the amendment on "public policy" grounds, said the court, was better addressed to the legislature.

Tags:
Posted on March 11, 2008 by David McCranie

Employer Entitled to Costs Even Though it Did Not Plead Entitlement

One of the many changes enacted by the 2003 legislature was an amendment to §440.34(3), Fla. Stat., which, for the first time, allowed an employer/carrier to recover its litigation costs from an unsuccessful claimant.  Must the employer/carrier specifically plead entitlement to costs in the pretrial stipulation in order to recover them? No, said the First DCA in F.A. Richard and Associates v. Fernandez, reversing the JCC's conclusion to the contrary.

Tags:
Posted on August 1, 2007 by David McCranie

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.

Tags: , ,