Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

November 27, 2015 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Costs — Stipulations — Judge of compensation claims erred in denying stipulation regarding costs payable by employer/carrier on ground that no supporting documentation describing the costs was provided

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2616gTop of Form

Workers’
compensation — Costs — Stipulations — Judge of compensation claims erred in
denying stipulation regarding costs payable by employer/carrier on ground that
no supporting documentation describing the costs was provided — Under administrative
rule applicable to instant case, which did not involve a settlement under
section 440.20(11), parties are permitted to stipulate to payment of attorney’s
fees and costs, with no requirement that agreed-upon costs be justified or
detailed

FRANCISCO GOBEL, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES AND
SEDGWICK CMS, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D15-2374. Opinion filed
November 24, 2015. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.
Gerardo Castiello, Judge. Date of Accident: July 25, 2010. Counsel: Mark L.
Zientz, Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, Miami, and Toni L. Villaverde, Toni L.
Villaverde, PLLC, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Clinton C. Lyons, Jr., Moran
Kidd Lyons Johnson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant
appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) order denying stipulated
litigation costs of $200 payable by the Employer/Carrier (E/C). The E/C has
filed notice that it takes no position in this appeal. Because the JCC focused
on an inapplicable administrative rule to deny the stipulated costs, we
reverse.

Following Claimant’s successful pursuit of a claim for
medical benefits, the parties submitted to the JCC a stipulation resolving the
remaining claims for attorney’s fees and costs. The JCC denied the stipulation
regarding the costs payable by the E/C because no supporting documentation
describing the costs was provided. The JCC expressed concern that he was unable
to determine if the claimed costs were truly costs as opposed to attorney’s
fees disguised as costs. Claimant argued that no documentation was necessary
given Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.123(5) which provides, in part,
that “[a] claim for cost reimbursement in the amount of $250 or less shall not
be set forth with specificity or detail.” The JCC rejected Claimant’s argument
based upon his determination that the administrative rule is not valid. Both
the JCC and Claimant, however, mistakenly assumed the applicability of rule
60Q-6.123(5) to this case.

By its title and its context, rule 60Q-6.123(5) applies only
to settlements under section 440.20(11), Florida Statutes, where a claimant is
responsible for paying his or her own attorney’s fees and costs out of a lump
sum settlement extinguishing liability for all claims. In contrast, the
stipulation here is for E/C-paid costs. Florida Administrative Code Rule
60Q-6.124(2), which is the applicable rule for fees and costs paid by a carrier
apart from section 440.20(11) settlements, permits parties to “stipulate to the
payment of attorney’s fees and costs,” with no requirement that the agreed-upon
costs be justified or detailed. Such matters are governed by the law of
contracts and settlement, with no specialized rules.

Claimant is not being asked to pay the costs incurred by his
lawyer. The JCC’s apparent concern for Claimant’s welfare is misplaced where
the E/C agrees to pay the payment of unspecified costs. While we express no
opinion concerning the validity of rule 60Q-6.123(5) for settlements under
section 440.20(11), the rule does not apply to the facts here. Accordingly, we
REVERSE and REMAND for entry of an order awarding costs as agreed by the E/C
and as permitted by rule 60Q-6.124. (SWANSON, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.)

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982