Over is a challenging term to some. There may be a reluctance to accept it. Over has been the topic of a few lyricists over the years. Sugar Ray (2001) asked "When it's over, Is it really over?" Loverboy (1981) simply intoned "It's over, it's over, it's over." Both songs had the same title When its Over, and each addresses the end of a relationship as songs are wont to do.
The lyrics recently came back to me regarding the potential for a "nothing's over" posture as to claims. There are a variety of paths to "over" in workers' compensation litigation. A party can resolve her/his claims for benefits. This is referred to as "all issues resolved," and means merely that the pending petition issues have been resolved. The resolution of "all issues" does not mean "it is really over." That merely means that these issues, at this time, are concluded.
Or a party can resolve the current issues and all future potential benefit issues, referred to as "settled." A settlement, by comparison will mean that "It's over, it's over, it's over," unless some class of benefits is specifically excluded from the settlement, such as when only indemnity (monetary wage replacement) or only medical benefits are settled.
But, compromise is not the only path to resolution of a claim. A party may instead proceed to trial. A party has the opportunity to present her or his evidence to the Judge of Compensation Claims, from which a final order will follow. That order may award or deny specific benefits. In the event such an order denies benefits, it may be, again, that merely the present claims are over, but that the employee's case remains open and subject to future claims of entitlement to other benefits.
It is also possible that the employer will deny that any compensable injury or accident occurred, or other broad defenses. The employer might allege that misrepresentations were made. If such a broad defense is accepted, it is possible that this particular final compensation order may mean that not only are those present claims denied, but that the case itself is concluded. That is, that no future petition filings can re-open the case to further consideration.
Thus, through resolution or adjudication, an employee's litigation may at various times be over for now, and at some time may instead be permanently over.
When a decision is rendered by a Judge of Compensation Claims, it is never the final word. Any party may seek appellate review of a judge's decision, see section 440.271 Fla. Stat. Before doing so, the party should generally point out any alleged mistake or error to the trial judge through a motion for rehearing, see Rule 60Q6.122. This allows the trial judge to correct flaws in the trial order. The time to seek rehearing is limited to 10 days, a reasonably short deadline.
The time within which to seek review by the appellate court is also limited. The party seeking review must file her/his/its notice of appeal within 30 days of the date the challenged order is "rendered." The date of rendition is the day the order is sent to the parties. And, if the notice is not filed within this time, then the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review the order. See, Troche v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 954 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The failure to file timely may be fatal to the request for review.
While the appellate court has jurisdiction over the case, while the case is pending before the court, the trial judge's authority over certain issues may be limited. The authority over the specific issues decided and appealed shifts from the trial judge to the appellate court until it concludes its review. But, other issues may also be beyond the trial judge until such time as the Court rules. This is dependent, in part, upon the manner in which those tried issues were decided, the nature of the defenses, and more. It can be difficult at times to discern what does and does not remain in the trial judge's authority while the appeal is pending.
If a timely notice of appeal is filed, the appellate court may instruct the one seeking review (called the "appellant") to do particular things, by issuing orders. There may be actions required instead by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The appellate court may conclude, for a variety of reasons, that an appeal should be dismissed (meaning it will not address the specifics).
The court may consider the allegations in the appeal, and remain unpersuaded. The Court may conclude the appeal based upon the allegations in the challenger's (appellant's) initial brief. In that instance, it may instruct the other parties not to even file a brief. It may make its decision based upon that brief and the "answer" brief of the party that did not seek court review (appellee). And, in some instances, the court instead will consider all the briefs and still invite the parties to provide oral argument regarding the issues.
The court may fully consider the challenges and then either affirm the trial judge (meaning the appellant does not prevail and the trial decision stands). This "affirmance" may be expressed in a written opinion that provides an explanation and edification as to the outcome (affirmed) and the reasons or precedent relied upon by the court in reaching its conclusion. Or, the court may "affirm" in a brief opinion that provides no explanation for its decision.
The court might instead reverse the trial judge's decision. Often, in that instance, the court will tell the trial judge to reconsider specific evidence in light of its opinion, or perhaps even conduct a new trial. This process of returning the case to the trial judge is called a "remand." When the Court reverses, it is common for it to instruct the trial judge to revisit the topic, correct the mistake, and issue a new order either with or without further trial proceedings. It is also possible that the appellate court may instead reverse the trial judge's conclusions and simply state the outcome of the case. In those cases, no "remand" of the decided issues is necessary, the appellate court decision summarily concludes the issue.
Those appellate decisions are generally rendered by a panel of three judges. It is also possible that a party may be unsatisfied by the appellate court ruling. A dissatisfied party may ask the same three-judge panel to reconsider the decision, in a similar motion for rehearing. The party could ask the entire court to consider the outcome of the appellate challenge, an "en banc" consideration. The court might or might not agree to such a rehearing.
The unsatisfied party may also seek review of another court, such as the Florida Supreme Court. She/he/it may express dissatisfaction with the conclusions of the appellate court, and/or continuing dissatisfaction with the trial judge. Whether the Supreme Court will undertake a review is generally a decision within its discretion, though there is a small category of appellate outcomes that the Supreme Court must hear.
When this appellate process has concluded, or after the 30 days a party has to instigate the appellate process, the case may in fact be over. If the decision of the trial judge did not address the case, but only specific issues, it is possible that merely those issues will be over following the appellate process or the 30 days. In either instance, one might conclude that understanding and traversing this process is somewhat complex and even confusing.
But, in either instance, "over" may be the ultimate outcome. Once an issue is litigated and decided, a party may not be able to pursue that issue ever again. It may be that the issue or the entire case is over. Really over, as in "It's over, it's over, it's over." That may be difficult for a party to accept. There may be an inclination to feel that some path forward always exists. But, the reality is that eventually the litigation will come to an end and the case or issue will be over, whether for good or ill.
However difficult that conclusion is to accept, "when it's over" it may truly be over. The issues in any litigation may be highly personal and important. It may be emotional for any party. But, it may nonetheless be simply over.
