The Florida Supreme Court has struck down, as unconstitutionalon due process grounds, the mandatory fee schedule in Section440.34, Florida Statutes (2009), finding that it eliminated therequirement of a reasonable attorneys' fee to a successful workers'compensation claimant.

The court reasoned that, considering that the right of aclaimant to obtain a reasonable attorneys' fee has been a criticalfeature of the Workers' Compensation law, the mandatory feeschedule in Section 440.34, which created an irrebuttablepresumption that precluded any consideration of whether the feeaward was reasonable to compensate the attorney, wasunconstitutional under both the Florida and U.S. Constitutions as aviolation of due process.

The case

Marvin Castellanos was injured during the course of hisemployment with the Next Door Co. Through the assistance of anattorney, Castellanos prevailed in his workers' compensationclaim.

Because Section 440.34 limits a claimant's ability to recoverattorneys' fees to a sliding scale based on the amount of workers'compensation benefits obtained, the fee awarded to Castellanos'attorney amounted to only $1.53 per hour for 107.2 hours of workdetermined by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) to be“reasonable and necessary” in litigating Castellanos' case.

Castellanos had no ability to challenge the reasonableness ofthe $1.53 hourly rate, and both the JCC and a Florida trial courtwere precluded by Section 440.34 from assessing whether the feeaward—calculated in strict compliance with the statutory feeschedule—was reasonable. The statute presumes that the ultimate feealways will be reasonable to compensate the attorney, withoutproviding any mechanism for refuting that presumption.

The validity of that law reached the Florida Supreme Court.

Continue reading …

The Supreme Court of Florida building in Tallahassee.(Photo: iStock)

The Florida Supreme Court's decision

The Florida Supreme Court decided that Section 440.34, mandatinga conclusive fee schedule for awarding attorneys' fees to aclaimant in a workers' compensation case, was unconstitutional as adenial of due process under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.

In its decision, the court explained that the right of aclaimant to obtain reasonable attorneys' fees when successful insecuring benefits had been considered a critical feature of theWorkers' Compensation law since 1941. It noted that, from itsoutset, the workers' compensation law was designed to assure “thequick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits toan injured worker.”

Yet, the court added, “In reality, the Workers' Compensationsystem has become increasingly complex to the detriment of theclaimant, who depends on the assistance of a competent attorney tonavigate the thicket.”

The court conceded that the statutory fee schedule could, insome cases, result in a constitutionally adequate fee. It ruled,however, that it was facially unconstitutional as it precludedevery injured worker from challenging the reasonableness of a feeaward.

The court held the “irrebuttable statutory presumption”unconstitutional.

In the court's view, it was “undeniable that without the rightto an attorney with a reasonable fee,” the workers' compensationlaw could no longer “assure the quick and efficient delivery ofdisability and medical benefits to an injured worker.”

Accordingly, it quashed the trial court's decision upholding the“patently unreasonable $1.53 hourly fee award,” and directed thatthe case be remanded to the JCC for entry of a “reasonable”attorney's fee.

The case is Castellanos v. Next Door Co., No. SC13-2082(Fla. April 28, 2016).

Related: Top 10 Workers' Comp carriers, as ranked by NAIC