I get some intriguing emails from time to time. I received one recently in which the inquirer expressed some questions for the good of the community. The writer laid claim to the role of "sounding board" and suggested that dissemination of information would benefit the workers' compensation community writ large.
There is no prohibition on asking broad questions. Obviously, we are not permitted to comment on any particular case. That becomes frustrating because often people's interests are defined and driven by some particular case. Undoubtedly, there are those with academic interests, but then there are those who only want to know how many ounces in a gallon when that information is needed for a particular measurement task.
I provided the best response I could to the three inquiries submitted. I now post them here for all to read at their leisure, whether they are or are not in contact with the "sounding board."
1. There seems to be a split of “authority” amongst judges about the need for time records in a Miles setting. Obviously, the rule does not require this, but some judges are insistent that they must have them and an affidavit will not suffice. Can you shed any light on this please?
There is no rule I know of regarding what is or is not required for any fee approval, except 60Q6.123 and 124. The court has declared a standard of “reasonable,” and the assigned judge whose approval is sought has to make that call. Any party feeling affronted by any ruling can seek review from the Court for clarity, action, or constraint.
I am not aware of what would patently distinguish one fee from another in terms of reasonableness. The creativity of the Court in its Lee Engineering legislation, reinforced in Castellanos has been discussed in many seminars I have attended. There seems to be some community attentiveness to those two decisions (apologies for no italics, but this email platform does not afford that).
2. Is there an OJCC policy about how Extraordinary writs are to be filed (with the JCC vs. the DCA). I recently filed a writ with a JCC and was advised by the OJCC office that it needs to be filed with the 1st DCA. My reading of the rule suggests otherwise. As a result, my writ sat filed with the JCC for 30 + days with no action taken. I wanted to know if there’s any policy or internal operating procedures for the OJCC on how extraordinary writs are handled when filed with the JCC.
There is no OJCC policy. OJCC policy is published in the 60Q rules. We have no local rules. Nonetheless, judges are called upon to make decisions interpreting both expressions and omissions.
The statute includes: “Procedures with respect to appeals from orders of judges of compensation claims shall be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court.” 440.25(5)(a), Fla. Stat. That is specific to “with respect to appeals from orders.” Some might argue whether a particular writ is or is not (1) an appeal and (2) “from (an) order.” I do not note any procedures for extraordinary writs in the 60Q Rules. Does labeling matter? Some might suggest Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(C) means "no" regarding labeling. Others might disagree.
In the event of an appeal "from orders," the main reference is Fla.R.App.P. 9.180.
But, the appellate court rules have a specific rule for “original proceedings,” 9.100. That sounds like it would address all of the extraordinary writs. That references filing with the court and omits reference to what the OJCC might or might not do in that process.
The rule purports to apply to:
"for the issuance of writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of the courts’ jurisdiction; and for review of non-final administrative action."
Instigation is:
"The original jurisdiction of the court shall be invoked by filing a petition, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction."
The term "original" as regards writs might suggest to some that the proceeding is instigated in the court whose jurisdiction is invoked. There is certainly an argument for such a proceeding to be filed in the appellate court directly, originally. I cannot recall any such proceeding being filed with the OJCC in a case but recall several filed directly with the District Court. That said, I cannot speak for either the Court or the rules in terms of actual impact and effect.
Of course, all rules, statutes, and regulations are subject to interpretation. If you ask two lawyers where you should file an extraordinary writ, you might get three or more answers (people change their minds). Lawyers seek relief (filing), judges make decisions (orders). Some rulings are accepted, and others are challenged. That is for the appellate courts. If you believe a trial judge is in error, that is a subject for the appellate court.
3. With more JCCs setting live hearings, the need for fast and reliable Wi-Fi at the OJCC office becomes a big issue. Is there any news on improving Wi-Fi connectivity at the OJCC offices?
I appreciate hearing this. However, it is difficult to accept it is a large issue. I have not had anyone raise this issue in at least the last 24 months, and frankly do not recall it since we made the bandwidth adjustments in 2021 during the COVID era. That rehabilitation involved much hardware replacement and upgrade as well as software adjustment.
Bandwidth is like lanes on a highway. If I tell someone we need to address "traffic" in Orlando, where would one start? To say the traffic is a problem describes perceptions but does not facilitate diagnosis or treatment. It is like "I hurt."
So, if anyone is having a problem, the best course would be an email that says something to the effect of what, where, when: "I was trying to open a document from a case docket (DN 45) on October 21, 2024, at about 1:30 p.m. in Judge Anthony's hearing room in Tampa." Or, I tried to open multiple documents in the docket of case yy-000xxx during a 1:00 hearing in the Tampa office."
This is more the equivalent of "My right knee hurts when I stand and turn, the pain is on the inside of my leg," or "The traffic on October 21, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. between exits X and Y kept me from exceeding 20 MPH on I-4."
With detail, we can evaluate what the causes might be (who else is using the bandwidth or lanes), is there a clogged or disabled exit, a non-functioning traffic signal at an intersection, a large event on a side road, etc. We are happy to strive to address those issues to enhance the customer's use of the space and the electronic tools.
That is the end of the original email. I am hopeful that this information is of assistance to the community. I encourage you to contact me at your convenience regarding GENERAL QUESTIONS (Please do not make inquiries about a specific case unless you provide copy of that inquiry to all parties and counsel).