On April 27, 2013 a blog was posted on The Legal Examiner. I link to that article is at the end of this post. The author is an attorney. He makes some interesting observations about the St. Petersburg District Office of the OJCC, asserting that “the place is a ghost town” as a result of the legislative removal of the word “reasonable” from Fla. Stat. 440.34 in 2009. He laments that the office is a “ghost town” because “the state legislature has so limited an injured worker's right to hire an attorney, that injured workers are hard-pressed to find a lawyer who is willing to represent them and take their case in front of a judge.”
This may be the case. It is beyond my expertise to determine why filings have decreased, or why fewer are proceeding to trial, and I defer to the attorneys who file claims. They best know what is influential in their marketplace. The author also notes that before this change in the statute, “on any given day, there would be 10-15 mediations taking place and several hearings” in the St. Petersburg district office. Likely, some of those hearings were motion hearings.
The current procedural rules, Rule 60Q6.115(4) define a process where most motions are decided based on the motion and a written response to that motion. The rule specifically states “The judge shall not hold hearings on motions except in exceptional circumstances and for good cause shown in the motion or response.” The current motion practice process is very different from that under previous rules. Certainly, ten years ago, motion practice was far more likely to involve motion hearings. Many judges conducted those hearings at a single time weekly, on a first-come first-served basis. I can recall many congested waiting rooms as attorneys waited in line for their turn to have a motion heard.
When I started in Pensacola in 2001, the culture could not comprehend a motion order issuing without a hearing. It took some getting used to. Thus, the frequency of a procession of attorneys appearing for various motion hearings has certainly decreased in all of the District Offices in recent years.
That attorneys stood in line to have a hearing does not mean that the process was either effective or efficient. There is room for debate about whether the decrease in motion hearings under the present rules has any responsibility for the writer’s perception of a ghost town. However, the metrics support that many motions are still filed and that many orders are still entered.
The procedural rules have long allowed a judge of compensation claims with discretion regarding telephonic appearances at motion hearings. The rules likewise have afforded mediators discretion regarding telephonic appearance at mediation conferences, which are required regarding most petitions for benefits. There are many attorneys who seek permission to appear for proceedings by telephone. Many now even appear for discovery, such as depositions, using the telephone. It is more efficient for the attorney.
The attorney appearing by telephone for depositions, hearings, and mediations saves the time and expense of traveling to and from the District Office. This practice, and the requests, therefore, increased markedly about 5 years ago when Governor Crist issued an executive order encouraging telephonic practice, citing the greenhouse gas results of travel.
In my perception, this telephonic paradigm has become more pervasive in recent years. Improvement in technology, that is better phones are a factor. Electronic filing facilitating instantaneous access to filed documents is a factor. The price of fuel is likely a factor. Attorney’s schedules are likely a factor. Constraints on attorneys fees on both sides of the table, and a resulting motivation to limit the time spent travelling, which may not be compensated for either party, may be a factor also. I have heard of attorneys appearing telephonically for such events from other states and countries. A great convenience.
With the electronic filing system the OJCC has pioneered, we have situations in which pleadings are filed from great distances and orders entered by a vacationing judge several states away. It has been commonplace for the St. Petersburg judge to enter settlement and other orders from the annual workers’ compensation CLE program in Colorado or Utah. Other judges routinely monitor pleadings and enter orders from vacation. These orders are entered without hearing from half a continent away, and most attorneys likely do not realize that this work is occurring despite the attorneys and judge not needing to be present in the St. Petersburg, or other District, office to do so.
I take the author’s perceptions of fewer people being present in the St. Petersburg District Office at face value. I have to presume that he is present in the District Office regularly and that his description of a “ghost town” is based upon his personal observations. I on the other hand am in the St. Petersburg District Office only sporadically. Unlike the author, I live and work hundreds of miles from the St. Petersburg Office.
The author suggests that the attorney fee change in 2009 is the root of fewer people being present in the St. Petersburg District Office. The attorney fee statute change that is referenced was passed in 2003. The OJCC is staffed today at the same levels, essentially, as they have been for decades. One could look at the petition filing volumes in 2012, 61,354, and conclude that PFB filings are down. Compared to the figure in 2003, 151,021, that would be an accurate conclusion.
However, anecdotal evidence supports the OJCC offices were more congested with live appearances in the 1990s than the 2000s. That is, the congestion and density were greater in the 1990s. From the Blog author’s perspective, it appears he would agree with this. in fiscal 1996, 56,298 petitions were filed. The petition volume today remains higher than in 1996. This seems to support that technology and the rule changes are playing a larger role, in less office congestion, than has been acknowledged by the author. While the fee statute may be playing a role, I am merely suggesting that other factors may likewise be playing a role that is not acknowledged by the post.
From the statistics we see, that the Judges of Compensation Claims are busy. Our district staff is busy, though engaged in different tasks than in the 1990s. The claims are being filed at a rate consistent with the mid-1990s. Motions are being filed and orders entered, but less hearings are being held. Attorneys are leveraging technology to maximize their efficiency, with the telephonic attendance at events.
Again, I leave the analysis of how and to what extent attorneys are prosecuting those claims. I leave to others to determine the role of the fee changes in this process. These are things about which the claimant’s attorneys know far more than I. What I know, however, is that the Judges of Compensation Claims and mediators, and office staff are working hard, being efficient, and delivering a quality service to Floridians.
Blog Post:
http://clearwater.legalexaminer.com/workplace-injuries/removal-of-reasonable-creates-ghost-town-in-workers-comp-court.aspx?googleid=308266
