“Should I Stay or should I go now?” That
lyric was immortalized by the Clash in the 1980s. The song comes to my mind as
I focus once again on the power of the Judges of Compensation Claims to delay
the prosecution of a case pending for trial. It is not uncommon for parties to
find themselves unprepared to try their case, for a multitude of reasons.
Sometimes it is scheduling issues, and sometimes it results from changes in
circumstances. Those who practice workers’ compensation litigation are familiar
with the continuance, and the circumstances which necessitate one.
Many times, however, we see motions for
a stay, rather than a continuance. The parties seek to suspend the proceedings.
Usually courts enter a stay to secure the rights of the party or parties seeking
that relief.
Frequent workers’ compensation
practitioners in Florida are familiar with the fact that the Office of Judges
of Compensation Claims is not a Court, and has no inherent judicial power.
Though there are those who insist on mislabeling this administrative office a
“court,” the Florida Supreme Court has clarified that it is not. See, The Quart
of Claims, News and 440 Report, Volume XXXI, No. 1, Winter 2013. That
mis-characterization, “court” has led to confusion at times.
As a limited, statutory agency, the
Judges of Compensation Claims have only the authority, power and responsibility
that is vested by statute. For the most part, these are in Chapter 440. There
is a catch-all provision, therein, which empowers JCCs to do those things which
are required to facilitate or accommodate the needs of performing statutory
duties. Section 440.33(1) provides authority to “do all things conformable to
law which may be necessary to enable the judge effectively to discharge the
duties of her or his office.”
That is a slim exception though, and it
does not answer the Clash’s question as to whether we should Stay or we should
go. The answer is found, however, in Alachua County Detention Center v. Alford,
727 So.2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The definitive answer is that the Judges of
Compensation Claims do not have the authority to enter a Stay.
There, the E/C sought a Stay, which the
JCC denied. They then filed a petition for writ of certiorari that the court
denied, holding “the E/C have not shown that the JCC departed from the
essential requirements of law.” The court affirmed the JCC’s conclusion that
“the authority to grant a stay or injunction has not been specifically
delegated to the JCCs by the Legislature.” The opinion reiterates that the OJCC
“exists and operates under grant of quasi-judicial power from Legislature
supplemented only by rules of procedure applicable to it,” (citing authority
that had made that determination regarding the former Industrial Relations
Commission). The Court found it
persuasive that the E/C could cite no authority which afforded a JCC to “grant
such relief (stay) in a case like this.”
Many times, a request for Stay filed
with the OJCC is accompanied with a copy of a Stay issued by a court, often a
bankruptcy court. The party is asking the JCC to enter a Stay because the
Bankruptcy Court has entered a Stay. This is redundant. The OJCC is likely
bound in most instances by a Bankruptcy Court Stay. In such an instance, the
party is not really seeking a Stay from the JCC, but instead a recognition of
the existing Stay. What the party is seeking from the JCC is essentially
“comity,” or respect for the other Court’s ruling.
The OJCC is prepared to accommodate such
rulings. There are characterizations for hearings in our database. Among
others, a hearing may be “set” or “resolved prior” or “continued.” These
characterizations merely describe the status of an appointment for trial or
mediation. We have a specific characterization “continued for court stay.”