Workers’ compensation — Sanction — Judge of compensation claims erred in denying claimant’s motion for sanctions under section 440.32(3) based on allegation that employer/servicing agent’s attorney raised an improper and unfounded discovery objection in a motion for protective order — Under unambiguous language of statute, sanctions are both mandatory and not subject to any specific time limitation other than the pendency of ongoing litigation — Accordingly, plain language of statute does not support JCC’s ruling that motion for sanctions was either untimely or unwarranted because the E/SA’s motion for protective order was denied only in part — Administrative rule generally providing for imposition of sanctions for violation of rules or of any order of JCC goes beyond plain language of statute where sections of rule make imposition of sanctions discretionary and creates safe harbor period allowing sanctions to be avoided completely — Discussion of interplay between Rule 60Q-6.125 and section 440.32(3)
44 Fla. L. Weekly D1747a
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