One of the clear highlights of the educational year is the opportunity to observe the legal system in progress. For several years now, the appellate court has come to the people in an egalitarian effort. It is humanizing and informative. The presence of the court in an accessible and amenable environ is amazingly helpful to the workers' compensation community.
I just received notice of each case that will be argued before the court "at the annual Workers' Compensation Conference in Orlando." The two notices arrived within minutes of each other.
One is case Su-Ann Belle Zilnicki v. Steward Sebastian River Medical Center, 20-000424BKC. This case involves a swath of legal issues. There are evidentiary questions that may provide edification and clarification for all who handle claims and evidence. The employer/carrier is seeking review after the injured worker prevailed at trial. There were multiple motions for rehearing as the employer/carrier sought to clarify and define the dispute.
The arguments that remain on appeal include Daubert, the specificity and timeliness of evidentiary objections to expert testimony. There will likely be a discussion of section 90.702, Fla. Stat. This argument is likely to provide perspectives on the preparation and preservation of expert testimony. In the world of workers' compensation, there is unlikely any evidentiary challenge that is more common.
In the decision of compensability, arising out of, causation and extent of impairment or disability, the medical opinion is critical. Science is the standard. And it is common for the two sides in a case to have differing perspectives on the strength, foundation, and believability of such evidence. This argument will be edifying and interesting.
The second case to be argued is Christy Siena as surviving spouse for Siena, Eric (Dec'd) v. Orange County Government. 21-016957NPP
The issues are less clear. In the notice of appeal, the injured worker did not identify those with specificity, but "appeals all issues adversely to her, including any rulings and orders rendered final by entry of the Final Evidentiary Order." In the world of drafting, this might be referred to as "broad" or "inclusive."
There are some provisions regarding appeal and specificity. One says that the notice "shall contain a brief summary of the type of benefits affected, including a statement setting forth the time periods involved." Perhaps there are no benefits implicated in this particular case? Such a notice, leads the reader back to the order that is being appealed, the ultimate source for understanding a judge's decision.
The evidentiary order describes a law firm hiring a lawyer. There are conclusions regarding that lawyer's previous employment, client confidences, and the volume of litigation in which the lawyer was involved. The judge concluded that the attorney represented employer/carriers in various cases against the law firm that had recently hired her. The firm at which she had previously worked and represented those clients objected to her work with the new firm and moved to disqualify her and that firm from various cases.
In a detailed order, there is discussion on the law of conflict of interest, waiver, work product, client confidences, and more. The discussion of the law on disqualification is significant and detailed. There is discussion of potentially conflicting principles of "societal rights, such as the right of a party to his counsel of choice and an attorney's right to freely practice her profession."
Thus, there are intriguing issues. There will be perspectives, points, and counterpoints. The arguments should be of interest to a broad spectrum of the workers' compensation community. All workers' compensation claims involve doctors. Many involve lawyers. And the involvement of these professionals are subject to statutes, rules, and various prior court decisions (precedent). These will be interesting proceedings indeed.
Public access to such proceedings is educational and informative. In our modern world, it is also egalitarian because it can be accessed by anyone with an internet connection. In the immortal words of some sweepstakes announcer of our past, "you need not be present to win." The Court publishes all of its oral argument videos on its website. The arguments from last August are available for review:
22-0165 08/23/2022 Advanced Disposal Services Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. Jorge Luis Diaz
21-3530 08/23/2022 Seminole County, Florida and Johns Eastern Company, Inc. Chad Braden
In August 2023, this post will be amended to include similar links to the arguments and decisions in the cases discussed above. Whether in the Marriott World Center Palms Ballroom on August 22, 2023, or thereafter, any of us could benefit by viewing such oral arguments and studying the manner in which the law is debated, perspectives are considered, and decisions are ultimately made.
