Florida Supreme Court To Hear Appeal On Attorney Fee Statute

Orlando, FL (CompNewsNetwork) - The Florida Supreme Court stunned the workers' compensation insurance industry last Tuesday when it decided to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in Murray v. Mariner, SC07-244. In that case the Claimant had suffered a prolapsed uterus as the result of an injury at work.  The case was denied by the carrier after the injured worker’s gynecologist opined that preexisting conditions predisposed the worker to a prolapse. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the Claimant and awarded a guideline attorney fee under the 2003 Amendments to F.S. 440.34. The Claimant then appealed and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling. A request to review the constitutionality of the statute was then filed with the Florida Supreme Court, which was not required to consider the appeal. The fact that the Florida Supreme Court has decided to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suggests that it may have questions as to whether the statute or the manner in which it is applied is constitutional.

This case involves the constitutionality of the Workers’ Compensation Attorney Fee Statute, F.S.440.34(3)

The 2003 Amendments to the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act had several major changes, one of the most controversial being FS § 440.34 which establishes guideline attorney fees.

Based on that law, the sole statutory basis for determining the amount of an attorney’s fee except in the case of “medical benefits only” claims, is the value of the benefits secured on behalf of the claimant. The JCC is prohibited from approving any agreement which provides for an attorney’s fee in excess of the guideline fee. Prior to the 10/1/03 amendments, a JCC had the discretion to deviate from the statutory guideline fee when the fee would be “manifestly unfair”

As stated above, the fact that the Florida Supreme Court has decided to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suggests that it may have questions as to whether the statute or the manner in which it is applied is constitutional.

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard at 9:00 am Wednesday, April 9, 2008.

Additional Documents:

Emma Murray v Mariner Health/ACE USA (1^st DCA December 1 2006)

Directive from Supreme Court April 17, 2007

Petitioner’s Initial Brief on Jurisdiction – Bill McCabe, Esq, 5/2007

Respondent’s Brief on Jurisdiction – John R. Darin II, Esq, 5/2007

Supreme Court Docket Case Number SC07-244

John R Darin II, Esq, Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A, Attorney for Respondent  contributed to this story.