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

June 30, 2017 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Judge of compensation claims — Disqualification — JCC erred in denying motion to disqualify on basis that motion was legally insufficient — Motion to disqualify which alleged that claimant fears that he will not receive a fair hearing because JCC found claimant’s attorney to be not credible in another case was legally sufficient — Petition for writ of prohibition granted

42
Fla. L. Weekly D1449b
Top of Form

Workers’
compensation — Judge of compensation claims — Disqualification — JCC erred
in denying motion to disqualify on basis that motion was legally insufficient
— Motion to disqualify which alleged that claimant fears that he will not
receive a fair hearing because JCC found claimant’s attorney to be not credible
in another case was legally sufficient — Petition for writ of prohibition
granted

GABRIEL LOWMAN, Petitioner, v.
RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC. D/B/A RACETRAC and BROADSPIRE, Respondents. 1st
District. Case No. 1D17-1385. Opinion filed June 27, 2017. Petition for Writ of
Prohibition — Original Jurisdiction. Counsel: Cory J. Pollack of Cory Jonathan
Pollack, P.A., Fort Myers, for Petitioner. Kevin R. Clarke of Law Office of
Kevin R. Clarke, Jupiter, for Respondents Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., d/b/a
Racetrac and Broadspire; and Stephanie R. Hayes, of Office of the Judges of
Compensation Claims, Tallahassee, for Respondent Jack A. Weiss.

(PER CURIAM.) Petitioner, the
injured worker in this workers’ compensation case, challenges the denial of his
motion to disqualify the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) and seeks a writ of
prohibition directing the JCC to disqualify himself. Because we find that the
JCC erred in denying the motion to disqualify, we grant the petition.

In his motion and accompanying
affidavit to disqualify the JCC, Petitioner asserts that he believes the JCC
“is prejudiced against [his] attorney” and that, “as a result of this
prejudice,” he fears the JCC will be prejudiced against him and that he “will
not receive a fair trial/Final Hearing.” Petitioner bases this belief on the
JCC’s denial of a motion to continue filed by Petitioner’s attorney in another
workers’ compensation case where the JCC found that the representations made by
Petitioner’s attorney in that motion to continue were not credible. Notably, in
the other workers’ compensation case, the JCC granted a motion to disqualify
that was filed at the same time as the motion here and that alleged the same
factual basis for disqualification. In the instant case, however, the JCC
denied the motion to disqualify as “legally insufficient.”

The Rules of Procedure for Workers’
Compensation Adjudications provide that “[a]ny motion for disqualification of a
judge shall be made and determined pursuant to [Florida Rules Judicial
Administration] 2.330.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.126(1). Under rule 2.330(d),
grounds supporting a motion to disqualify a judge include “that the party fears
that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically
described prejudice or bias of the judge.” In addition, rule 2.330(f) states
that the judge against whom the motion to disqualify is directed must
“determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the
truth of the facts alleged.” In determining whether a motion to disqualify is
legally sufficient, the appellate court reviews the motion’s allegations under
a de novo standard. See R.M.C. v. D.C., 77 So. 3d 234
(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Sume v. State, 773 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

In the order denying Petitioner’s
motion, the JCC cited case law holding that a lawyer’s request for general
disqualification will not be granted. See Ginsberg v. Holt, 86
So. 2d 650, 651 (Fla. 1956) (rejecting appellant/attorney’s request for what
was, “in effect . . . an injunction forever to restrain the appellee from
entertaining any case in which the appellant may appear”); Cascone v. Foster,
774 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (denying writ of prohibition to
petitioner/attorney who challenged judge’s decision to vacate standing recusal
order, because general disqualification, in accordance with Ginsberg,
will not be granted, but also noting party retained the right to move for
disqualification in specific proceeding). Nevertheless, as Petitioner correctly
points out, his attorney did not make a request for general disqualification;
instead, Petitioner made a request for the JCC’s disqualification from this
specific case. Thus, the JCC did not give a valid reason here for finding the
motion to be legally insufficient.

Under the applicable standard, a
motion to disqualify based on prejudice or bias is legally sufficient if “the
facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving
a fair and impartial trial.” Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087
(Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store,
Inc.
, 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990). Here, Petitioner alleges that the JCC is
prejudiced against his attorney because he previously stated that his attorney
was not credible — that is not worthy of belief. As noted, Petitioner’s
factual allegations must be taken as true. Under Florida law, a judge’s
statement that he feels a party has lied is generally considered an indication
of bias against the party. See, e.g., DeMetro v. Barad, 576 So.
2d 1353, 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citing Brown v. St. George Island, Ltd.,
561 So. 2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1990)). In Brown, the Florida Supreme Court
expressly agreed with the analysis by the Third District Court of Appeal which
included reliance on Deauville Realty Co. v. Tobin, 120 So. 2d 198 (Fla.
3d DCA 1960), cert. denied, 127 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1961) (holding that
statement by judge that party has lied generally indicates bias). Notably, in
reaching the holding in Tobin, the district court there commented that:

[T]he
formation of a prejudice during and as a result of a party’s testimony in a
trial need not affect the case in which it was arrived at in that manner,
although it may operate to disqualify that judge from hearing any later or second
trial of that case if one is had, or from participating in any subsequent
trial in which that party is involved
.

Id. at 202 (emphasis added). The JCC’s statement here was
effectively directed at Petitioner’s attorney, not the party/Petitioner. But, as
an indication of a bias which may create a party’s fear of not receiving an
impartial hearing, there is no appreciable difference. We find, therefore, that
the facts alleged here are legally sufficient to support Petitioner’s motion to
disqualify.

Accordingly, we GRANT the Petition
for Writ of Prohibition, QUASH the order denying the motion to disqualify, and
direct the Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims to reassign the case.
(ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.)

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • February 2021
  • 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