Legislation has been reintroduced to provide workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed an occupational illness or injury flowing from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A closer look at the legislation reveals that it removes defenses such as causal relationship, statute of limitations, and jurisdiction. Complicated statutory and regulatory challenges may ultimately offset the benefits offered.
Showing posts with label Statute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statute. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 30, 2024
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Constitutional Challenges New and Old, From Florida to Oklahoma
Today's post highlights the slow and tedious battle a contitutional challenge is to a workers' compensation issue. It is shared from flojcc.blogspot.com.
There is a value to consistency and predictability in the law. Attorneys rely upon the decisions of courts to form opinions about their cases. Attorneys with a clear understanding of their state's statutes, and the interpretations which appellate courts will apply to them, are in an admirable position to provide their clients with predictions and advice regarding their specific case and its issues. In Florida, this can take time. Sometimes such specifics can take many years. In 1993, the Florida Legislature made significant changes to the Florida Workers' Compensation law. Among these was a marked reduction in the quantum of temporary total disability benefits available, from 260 weeks to to 104 weeks. A panel of the Florida First District Court of Appeal ("First DCA") concluded on February 28, 2013 that this statutory change was Unconstitutional. Westphal v. St. Petersburg. (1D12-3563)On September 23, 2013, the Court granted en banc review. This means that the entire First DCA reconsidered the case and issued a new opinion. In this second iteration, a majority of the Court concluded that the 104 week limitation on temporary total disability (TTD) did apply to the claimant, Mr. Westphal. The en banc decision did not find Constitutional infirmity in the statute, as the panel had months earlier....
|
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Florida Upholds Low Counsel Fees
$164.54 for 107.2 hours of legal work
"Constrained by the statutory formula set forth in section 440.34(1), Florida
Statutes (2009), the judge of compensation claims awarded claimant’s counsel an
attorney’s fee of only $164.54 for 107.2 hours of legal work reasonably necessary
to secure the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits. We do not disagree with
the learned judge of compensation claims that the statute required this result, and
are ourselves bound by precedent to uphold the award, however inadequate it may
be as a practical matter. "
*****
"In the circumstances, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following as a question of great public importance:
WHETHER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN
THIS CASE IS ADEQUATE, AND CONSISTENT
WITH THE ACCESS TO COURTS, DUE PROCESS,
EQUAL PROTECTION, AND OTHER
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
The fee award is affirmed, and the question of its constitutional adequacy is
certified to the supreme court. "
MARVIN CASTELLANOS,
Appellant,
v.
NEXT DOOR COMPANY/
AMERISURE INSURANCE
CO.,
Appellees. (Filed Oct. 23, 2013)
"Constrained by the statutory formula set forth in section 440.34(1), Florida
Statutes (2009), the judge of compensation claims awarded claimant’s counsel an
attorney’s fee of only $164.54 for 107.2 hours of legal work reasonably necessary
to secure the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits. We do not disagree with
the learned judge of compensation claims that the statute required this result, and
are ourselves bound by precedent to uphold the award, however inadequate it may
be as a practical matter. "
*****
"In the circumstances, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following as a question of great public importance:
WHETHER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN
THIS CASE IS ADEQUATE, AND CONSISTENT
WITH THE ACCESS TO COURTS, DUE PROCESS,
EQUAL PROTECTION, AND OTHER
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
The fee award is affirmed, and the question of its constitutional adequacy is
certified to the supreme court. "
MARVIN CASTELLANOS,
Appellant,
v.
NEXT DOOR COMPANY/
AMERISURE INSURANCE
CO.,
Appellees. (Filed Oct. 23, 2013)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)