It would likely astound the casual observer to see the volume of instances in which challenges arise in litigation for the sole reason of indolence. We often see problems brought to motion, hearing, or even trial that might have been resolved if everyone had read the rules, and occasionally the statute. Florida workers' compensation is a statutory process. Many answers are contained in the plain words of chapter 440, and the 60Q Rules.
Time and again, I hear anecdotes about judges reading aloud to lawyers. If the judge is reading the statute (or rules) aloud in a hearing, it would be an appropriate time for paying attention. It is possible the judge thinks someone missed something, or is assuring her/himself that she/he did not miss something.
When you have not read the instructions, you may be confronted. That happened to a young patron recently at a restaurant in northern Indiana. She and friends visited in response to an "all-you-can-eat special," which does frankly sound rather tempting. She reportedly grasped the "all you can eat" portion of the offer but did not delve any deeper into the details. The "devil," they say, is in the details. The details in this instance eventually resulted in a free ride from the restaurant to the police station.
The problem with the details, it seems, is that "all you can eat" was specific to "you." In this instance, the news reports that "a group had ordered two 'all you can eat' specials, but had been sharing with others at the table." The manager, from the posture of "you eat you pay," had presented them with a bill for each of those eating "all" to each "have to pay $15.99 for the special."
To be frank, is there really someone that believes "all you can eat" means all everyone at the table can eat? If so, why not all everyone in the restaurant can? Neighborhood? Zip code? State? How ridiculous might that become in the hands of some scholars?
Reportedly, unkind words ensued and the local constabulary was summoned. In today's world of crime and violence, imagine wasting the time of those officers responding to a "we will not read" dispute at a local eatery. Allegedly, the "officers attempted to point out the limitation," that meant one patron per order. The restaurant had printed under the special, in bold letters, "per person." Hard as it is to believe, the restaurant was not offering a table full of people all they could collectively eat for $15.99.
The food sharing is not what got the patron a complimentary police car ride though. Her arrest followed allegations that she "allegedly became disorderly and began ignoring police orders and requests from a friend to calm down." Practice hint: “disorderly” and “police orders” rarely go well together in any sentence.
The point is illustrated. Read the whole document, not just the parts that jump off the page like "all you can eat." Know that there is every potential that the words will be clear and understandable. However, there is also every potential that some will find the words confusing or even confounding.
In that event, discussion may ensue and someone may have to make an ultimate decision about what the meaning of the word "is" is (if this a police person, strive to refrain from the "disorderly"). That decision may well be a judge or jury.
Reaching the point of such a trial decision about word meaning can be a long and expensive road. Thus, it makes sense to read the statute and rules carefully before spending that time and money.
To assist with that, there is decisional law. All of the trial decisions of the Judges of Compensation Claims since 2001 are in a database on the OJCC website. The decisions of the First District Court and Supreme Court are online. In our “common law” tradition, we hope that present decisions will respect those prior decisions, a process called stare decisis. One might look to them for guidance on how a statute or rule would or should be read.
But, in the end, read the statute and rules. Strive for understanding of what they say. Be prepared to explain the outcome you desire, whether that is supported by the plain meaning of "per person," or by your argument that "per person" is ambiguous, unclear, or otherwise contradicted. I am not suggesting that either prior decisions or the plain reading will control in a particular instance, but that you should prepare for each, and begin with reading the rules and statute.
Any party or lawyer can win on any day. But, you cannot be consistently effective in this process if you refuse or neglect to read the rules and statute.