You Must Keep your Profile Current

It is your responsibility to keep your email up to date with the OJCC in your user profile. 

The OJCC has become inundated with "Designations of Email Addresses Pursuant to Rule 2.516." 

The Office of Judges of Compensation Claims (OJCC) is part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial Branch. Jones v. Chiles, 638 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1994); In Re Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure 891 So.2d 474 (Fla. 2004).   The Rules of Judicial Administration apply to Courts in Florida, see R.Jud.Admin Rule 2.110. These rules do not bind the administrative process before the OJCC, an administrative hearing agency within the Executive branch. The Florida Supreme Court has so stated "the Workers' Compensation Rules of Procedure constitute an unconstitutional encroachment on the power of the executive branch to adopt rules of procedure for its own agencies." Likewise, any procedural rule enacted by the Court is binding only on the Florida Courts. For such rules to apply to the OJCC or any other administrative agency would likewise be an "unconstitutional encroachment."

The OJCC offers electronic filing to its registered e-filers. Through that program, attorneys, adjusters, mediators and parties may register to receive notices and orders from the OJCC through electronic transmission. This process affects significant cost savings to litigants in Florida workers' compensation cases. The electronic platform allows parties to register both a primary and secondary email address with the OJCC. To do so, attorneys must list their desired email addresses in e-JCC, in their "profile." Only the e-filer, "user," can change their profile. OJCC district staff cannot change this profile, regardless of being asked to by attorneys or others. Updating the profile is the user's responsibility and power alone. 

Two points are pertinent. First, filing a "Designation of Email Addresses Pursuant to Rule 2.516" with this administrative agency does not change the registered user's e-JCC profile. The notices and orders of this Office will be served by this Office on the email addresses listed in e-JCC, regardless of any such document filing. The OJCC is not responsible for adjusting users profiles or for serving notices and/or orders on email addresses listed in any pleadings, including "Designations of Email Addresses Pursuant to Rule 2.516." If attorneys wish to alter their registered email addresses as regards OJCC notices or orders, that is and remains their responsibility, in the profile in e-JCC, and is not accomplished by filing a pleading.

Second, the OJCC Rules of Procedure are currently pending revision. The proposed rules are published on the OJCC website.

The OJCC is currently accepting comments on those proposed rules. The comment period closes September 22, 2012. Anyone having any questions or comments regarding the proposed rules should send those to either Judge Cohen or myself.

Judge Cohen 

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida  32399-3060

Judge Langham

700 South Palafox Street,
Suite 305
Pensacola, FL 32502

david_langham@doah.state.fl.us

Finally, some have asked if changing their email with e-JCC will automatically change their e-mail address registered with The Florida Bar. It will not. Likewise, changing the email address you have registered with the OJCC, through e-JCC, will not change the address you have registered with The Florida Bar, The First District Court of Appeal, or any other agency, court, company or otherwise. Changing your e-JCC registered address will change only that, your e-JCC registered address.  

Applicants Announced for Vacancies

The Statewide Judicial Nominating Commission for Judges of Compensation Claims will meet on August 13, 2012 by telephone. This telephonic commission meeting will be open to the public by dialing 1.888.670.3525, and entering code number 2492172867 when prompted.

The Commission will then meet on August 20, 2012 at the Workers' Compensation Educational Conference in Orlando. This meeting will be August 20, 2012 at 9:00am at the Orlando World Center Marriott Resort & Convention Center, 8701 World Center Drive Orlando, Florida 32821in the Grand Ballrooms 9 & 10.The Commission's business will include

Applicants to fill the Miami vacancy resulting from the retirement of the Hon. Henry Harnage

A.  Johnsen, Gregory

B.  Kerr, Margret

C.  Renick, Steve

     D.  Sevak, Arthur 

Applicants to fill the Tampa vacancy resulting from the retirement of the Hon. Joseph Murphy

A.  Hart, Deborah

B.  Massey, Mark

C.  Anzalone, Larry

D.  Campbell, Ya’Sheaka

E.  McCall, Hillarey 

Applicants to fill the vacant Commission position in the 5th DCA geographical area

A.     Strickland, Stan 

The following judges will also appear in support of their applications for reappointment:

A.     MIAMI: Castiello, Gerardo

B.     MIAMI: Kuker, Alan

C.     WEST PALM: D’Ambrosio, Mary

D.     ST. PETERSBURG: Rosen, Stephen

E.      ORLANDO: Sculco, Thomas 

Statewide Judicial Nominating Commission meetings in August

The Statewide Judicial Nominating Commission is meeting soon. The OJCC will soon have two vacant judicial positions. Judge Henry Harnage (MIA) and Judge Joseph Murphy (TPA) are retiring during fiscal year 2013, which began July 1, 2012. These two will be missed, and applications are being accepted to fill their positions. The posting is here

http://www.fljcc.org/JCC/files/snc/VRA/20120820ReApptHearing_Amend.pdf

This amended notice was posted July 18, 2012; the amendment corrects the call-in telephone number for the Commission's meeting on August 13, 2012.

Important dates

July 27, 2012 - Application Deadline

August 6, 2012 - Deadline to request permission to address the August 20, 2012 Commission meeting

August 13, 2012 - Commission telephonic meeting, 1.888.670.3525, conference code 2492172867.

August 20, 2012 - Commission meeting for candidate and reappointment interviews.

Who will be interviewed:

Candidates for the Miami vacancy (Judge Harnage retirement)

Candidates for the Tampa vacancy (Judge Murphy retirement)

Candidates for the vacant Commission seat in the Fifth DCA (the Commission appoints 5 Commission members).

For reappointment:

     Honorable Stephen Rosen (SPT)

     Honorable Alan Kuker (MIA)

     Honorable Mary D’Ambrosio (WPB)

     Honorable Thomas Sculco (ORL) 

     Honorable Gerardo Castiello (MIA)

Follow the link above, or visit www.fljcc.org (the Statewide Judicial Nominating Commission tab) for the notice. 

The August 20, 2012 meeting will be held in conjunction with the Workers' Compensation Institute Educational Conference, August 20, 2012 at 9:00am at the Orlando World Center Marriott Resort & Convention Center, 8701 World Center Drive Orlando, Florida 32821in the Grand Ballrooms 9 & 10.

Rules Development Workshops

Make plans now to attend the Rules Development Workshops.

July 6, 2012 by video teleconference in Jacksonville, Tampa, West Palm, and Tallahassee. (Details below)

August 22, 2012 live at the Workers' Compensation Institute Educational Conference in Orlando. (Details below)

A RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP WILL BE HELD AT THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW:

DATE AND TIME: Friday, July 6, 2012, 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

PLACE: (bridge by video teleconferencing): 1809 Art Museum Drive, Suite 200, Jacksonville, Florida; 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 309, Tampa, Florida; 5405 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, Florida; and The DeSoto Building, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this workshop/meeting is asked to advise the agency at least 5 days before the workshop/meeting by contacting: Lisa Mustain, Administrative Services Director, (850)488-9675. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the agency using the Florida Relay Service, 1(800)955-8771 (TDD) or 1(800)955-8770 (Voice).

THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT AND A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT, IF AVAILABLE, IS: Loretta Sloan, Executive Assistant, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, (850)488-9675, ext. 221 or through the Internet at http://www.doah.state.fl.us/ or http://www.fljcc.org/

This posting is a reminder of the notice above which has been previously published in the Florida Administrative Weekly (https://www.flrules.org/gateway/readFile.asp?sid=1&tid=11614409&type=1&File=60Q-6.102.htm) and on the OJCC website:

http://www.fljcc.org/jcc/ and http://www.fljcc.org/JCC/rules/

The preliminary draft is also on the website at these addresses.

Additionally, there will be a Rules hearing, regarding proposed amendments to the Workers Compensation Rules, Wednesday, August 22, 2012, 8:00 a.m., Marriott World Center, 8701 World Center Drive, Orlando, Fl 32821, room is "to be announced" by posting in advance on www.fljcc.org, and will be available at the Workers' Compensation Institute information desk and the National Association of Workers' Compensation Judiciary information desk at the Educational Conference.

Free WIFI is Coming, We all Know Why

Technology continues to change around us. For the last six years, the OJCC has advocated and supported the leveraging of technology. The benefits of technology are obvious, in terms of cost and time savings. Technology makes us more productive and efficient.  Most compensation professionals are leveraging technology, and relate to us that they are using far less paper than ever. They recognize that the cost of storing paper, alone, is a strong motivation to minimize paper use and maximize portable document (PDF) images.

Likewise, electronic filing leverages technology. This platform has dramatically reduced the cost of transmitting documents to the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims. As of June 2012, the e-JCC platform has saved practitioners at least $1,269,726, and has saved the OJCC at least $1,981,452, a total of $3,251,178.  This is inspiring and gratifying in itself. It is only more inspiring when you know that the total OJCC investment in e-filing is less than $1,000,000. 

E-filing was voluntary for several years following the initial deployment of the platform in 2005. Effective October 31, 2010, e-filing became mandatory by rule.  In the eight months after that rule became effective, the OJCC averaged 38,475 e-filings per month.  On July 1, 2011, e-filing became mandatory by statute. In the 11 months July 2011 to May 2012, the OJCC averaged 38,352.27 per month.  Enforcement of the mandatory e-filing was deferred following these mandates, as the e-JCC platform was upgraded to permit such enforcement.  When the statutory mandate became effective (see the April 19, 2012 blog), there were factual situations, such as out-of-state accidents, for which the e-filing platform was not optimal.

Why has the average monthly volume of filings decreased slightly following the statutory mandate?  The easy answer is likely the continuing decline in rates of “new case” and petition filings.

This illustrates, however, that the electronic image (PCF) paradigm is now entrenched and accepted. A consistent complaint about this paradigm, however, has been the difficulty of accessing these PDF documents, the case docket, case management systems, and electronic mail from the OJCC District Offices. Certainly, the public is greatly benefited by the ability to access the internet from our offices.

When this idea was initially proposed years ago by practitioners including Ricardo Morales (MIA), Craig Gibbs (JAX), and Brian Carter (PNS)(and others). The difficulty we have had has been financial and logistical. Logistically, the OJCC is obligated to assure that WIFI access in our office is appropriate both in terms of content and bandwidth use. All OJCC office internet traffic is routed through the Department of Management Services, and inappropriate internet use in our offices could be attributed to our staff or agency. Further, allowing public access to our internet could inadvertently allow access to confidential information. The alternative, stand-alone DSL wireless access option represented a significant monthly expense (think of what you spend for access at home and multiply those phone line and DSL charges by 17 offices and twelve months per year and you will find that this alternative would have cost about $10,000.00 annually), in addition to about $2,000 in hardware investment.

The solution came through evolution of technology. In the winter of 2012 our IT department identified a wireless solution that allows public access to a limited sector of the bandwidth already in our District Offices, protects privacy by precluding access to confidential information, and allows us to monitor the use by our customers and guests. The hardware investment to accommodate this use was costly, almost $20,000. However, this hardware solves all the issues above, and allows us to limit the volume of bandwidth guests in our offices may use. This prevents guest internet use from slowing the ability of our staff to process their (your) work. We will recover the cost in about two years, and thereafter face only the minimal maintenance expense to provide this service. 

The equipment is operational in Pensacola, Panama City, and Tallahassee. It will become operational in coming weeks in each office.  Your WIFI device should identify both the “DOAH-OJCC_guest” and “DOAH_staff” networks.  Only the  “DOAH-OJCC_guest” network is accessible to guests, and you will find the other (““DOAH_staff”) network locked.  The public WIFI access utilizes the same internet connection that allows our OJCC staff to upload orders and notices, and which staff uses for database changes including scheduling your trials and mediations. Therefore, the volume of bandwidth for  “DOAH-OJCC_guest” use is limited. The WIFI access should be sufficient for email, accessing documents from the OJCC Docket or an attorney’s case management portal or “cloud.” The bandwidth is not sufficient for downloading music, video or large files such as photographs. Please do not attempt to use the WIFI for these purposes.

We are hopeful this service is of assistance to you, and that it enhances your experience at this Office of Judges of Compensation Claims District Office. 

The Benefits of E-Service

I attended the Florida Workers' Advocates' (FWA) annual Educational Conference on June 8, 2012 in Orlando. This is always an interesting conference, and affords opportunities to discuss the workers' compensation practice with a variety of attorneys. It is informative, despite some complaints or ideas being beyond the scope of issues which the OJCC can address. One recurrent example is the provisions of the attorney fee statute. I recognize that there is frustration and anger about Fla. Stat.§440.34. However, change in that statute can come from the legislature.

An attorney suggested to me at the FWA that he finds it more productive to serve petitions for benefits (PFB) upon employer and carriers (E/C), without filing them with the OJCC. He explained that this puts the issues upon the table for E/C resolution and does not burden the OJCC docket with a PFB that may ultimately not need to be filed, due to resolution of the issues. The response provisions of Fla. Stat. §440.192(8) may or may not be triggered by service of an un-filed PFB. That determination would be up to the Judge who is assigned to the case if the PFB is ultimately filed. 

However, as reported earlier in this blog, the OJCC will be bringing electronic service to e-JCC users in the near future. That new process will allow service pursuant to the alternate language in Fla. Stat. §440.192(1) "The employee shall also serve copies of the petition for benefits by certified mail, or by electronic means approved by the Deputy Chief Judge, upon the employer and the employer’s carrier." (Emphasis added). 

Mailing a petition will incur basic postage charges of $.45 (up to one ounce) to $.85 (up to three ounces, depending on the paper, volume of attachments, etc.). Added to this is the Certified charge of $2.95 currently according to the U.S.P.S. So, service of a PFB currently costs the Claimant between $6.80 ($.45 + $2.95 = $3.40, x 2 = $6.80) and $7.60 ($.85 + $2.95 = $3.80, x 2 = $7.60).  

There is an additional charge for a "return receipt" between $1.15 (email receipt) and $2.35 (U.S. Mail receipt). To utilize this service for both the Employer and the Carrier would double these charges to $2.30 to $4.70. So, if return receipt is used, this increases the cost to $9.10 ($2.30 + $6.80) to $12.30 ($4.70 + $7.60) per petition served. 

In 2011, 64,679 PFB were filed, and the Certified mail service of those petitions cost injured workers or their attorneys between $439,817 (64,679 x $6.80) and $795,551 (64,679 x $12.30). Each of the Responses to Petition, were sent by Certified mail also, and the alternative language in Fla. Stat. §440.192(8) will allow carriers to similarly avoid Certified mail expense when e-service is implemented, "The carrier shall provide copies of the response to the filing party, employer, and claimant by certified mail or by electronic means approved by the Deputy Chief Judge." (Emphasis added). 

The e-JCC electronic filing platform already provides savings to attorneys and carriers. Before e-filing, the PFB were required to be sent to the OJCC by certified mail. Before e-filing, the carrier had to mail their response to the OJCC. The OJCC projects that the savings to practitioners and carriers from the e-filing, and the minimum e-service savings described above, will easily exceed one million dollars annually. This is a tremendous savings. Of note, the entire OJCC e-filing process has been developed and deployed for less than one million dollars in total programming expense, to date.  

Returning to the premise that serving "un-filed" PFBs is advisable.  E-filing is mandatory. Therefore, an attorney that prepares a paper PFB to serve, without filing, on the Employer/Carrier will not be able to later file that paper PFB, if filing becomes necessary.  Thus, there is a risk that effort will have to be duplicated in later creating the e-PFB if filing is necessitated. 

Additionally, as e-service becomes reality in coming weeks, a practitioner that elects to serve a paper PFB by Certified mail will be spending money unnecessarily. Electronic filing of that PFB, with the advantageous e-service available through that process will save significant expense. As important, the OJCC database is designed to accommodate the volume of PFBs that are filed annually, and much more. There is no detriment to filing PFBs with the OJCC and enjoying the cost savings that will flow from the avoidance of Certified mail.  

Understanding the motivation of seeking early issue-resolution, and appreciating the sentiment of not burdening the OJCC database/docket, it is likely more cost-effective to file the PFB and use the e-service alternative. Decreasing the costs of practicing comp is both within the authority of the OJCC and beneficial to the parties and practitioners that participate in this system. The OJCC is committed to leveraging technology to make the practice of workers' compensation as cost-effective as practical.

I welcome your comments, ideas, suggestions and criticisms. E-mail me at david_langham@doah.state.fl.us.

Survey Results are Available

Each spring, the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims (OJCC) and the Workers' Compensation Section of The Florida Bar conduct a survey to gather perceptions about the Judges and Mediators that comprise the OJCC. This has been a long process in development, beginning with planning in 2007 and the first deployment in 2008, and with evolution since. The 2012 survey marks the fifth annual effort.

The Survey grew from a perception that bench/bar relations were strained in 2006. From a meeting of bar leaders emerged a proposal for a survey. From the beginning, there was a consensus that such an effort needed to include an opportunity for practitioners to comment on their perceptions of what could be improved in the various OJCC offices. The ultimate goal of this effort was to bring perceptions to the attention of the Judges on a more regular basis than is possible from the four year re-interview process alone.  

Through several iterations, this joint survey has been deployed in each of the last five years. The initial surveys were deployed on a free platform, with limited customization opportunities. We quickly outgrew the capabilities of that platform and hired a vendor for the 2010 and 2011 surveys. These were a marked improvement, allowing greater selectivity for the survey respondent, and thereby allowing response with a minimized time investment. The "comment" function of that platform also had limitations. In 2011 we therefore began searching for a new vendor, and through the efforts of Lisa Mustain, Administrative Services Director at the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), a new vendor was located and hired in late 2011, and a new survey readied for 2012. 

The 2012 results are in. They are available on the OJCC website, as are the results for all five years of the survey. Each year, the respondents are asked the same questions about the Judges and Mediators. Respondents rate the Judges from one ("poor") to five ("excellent") on their "knowledge of the law," "ability to comprehend complex issues," "knowledge of rules of procedure," clarity and concise nature of orders, "courteousness," "patience and willingness to listen," whether the judge is prepared for hearings, "impartiality" regarding the two sides of the case and the attorneys involved, and "punctuality." The surveys have always afforded respondents the chance to comment on the Judges and Mediators, and to comment on the survey itself. 

In 2012, one comment on the survey itself was that it contained the "same standard questions, not enough of them." Another Comment suggested more specific questions on the survey. Yet another respondent said the survey was "way too long, took almost an hour to complete." Another suggested "I would also like to see some questions about the staff at the judge's offices regarding their professionalism, promptness, cooperation, accessibility, responsiveness, availability, knowledge of procedures, etc. This is also a reflection of the judge's office. Some staff people are more caring in their job and it is a reflection to the general public that deal with them on various matters." These illustrate that some would shorten while others would lengthen the survey.

The survey questions are the result of hours of effort by the survey committee, which has included Judges Thomas Portuallo, Laura Roesch, and John Lazzara. The committee has also included lawyers such as Dan Hightower, Rod Magie, Jeff Jacobs, Tuwanna McMillan, Richard Chait, Richard Thompson, John Brooks, and Jake Schickel. I am sure I am leaving some out, but this is a good representation. There has been a desire to keep the questions consistent from year to year. However, these comments will be discussed when the committee meets at the Workers' Compensation Educational Conference in August.

Some comments about the survey are more general. One respondent suggested: 

"The 'Average' classification is ambiguous. The 'Average' level of impartiality, ability/willingness to explain, etc. for a JCC or mediator operating in a system which is statutorily biased against Claimants and their attorneys would be unacceptable in any other area of the practice."   

Another suggested:

"why not cut the budget by getting rid of state mediators, and force the carriers to pay for private? also do jccs really need support staff. seems like since they rule on motions without hearings, and seldom do you see them other than for final hearings, which are few, that they could take over those chores. isn't that the way it is done with unemployment? is anyone monitoring what they do during the day. i know of some that leave at 2:00 almost every day. counting the number of orders they issue means little, since it takes 2 seconds to sign an order prepared by someone else. what about time sheets, where they reveal what they do. why not make them punch in and out. can't this be done by computer."

These comments are helpful. One illustrates the level of frustration some have with the statutory provisions that govern workers' compensation in Florida. The other suggests that there is at least anecdotal evidence of a Judge(s) that are not working full-time. It is, and has been the policy of the OJCC that our Judges will be impartial and that their job is to follow the law. There are certainly many who would like to see various changes in the statute, and their wish(es) may come to pass. It is worth noting, however, that all OJCC Judges and Mediators are expected to work full-time. It is my hope that if anyone knows of a judge or mediator leaving each day at 2:00, that she/he would step forward and tell me who is doing so, so that the problem can be corrected.  

One respondent commented on the survey and concluded "That said, I am aware that, the greater of the scope requested, the lower the number of respondents can be expected. I also know that coming up with the perfect survey is an impossible task. Thank you for the opportunity to provide some feedback." I appreciate this sentiment. A perfect product is likely impossible, but we appreciate your time in taking the survey and in telling us how it could be better.

Call me at your convenience 850.595.6310, x 108, or email me david_langham@doah.state.fl.us if you can shed more light on these perceived problems or if you wish to participate in the survey committee. 

The salary gap quietly suffered by our state employees.

The economy is on everyone's mind these days and we are bombarded with the implications, European debt, American debt, gas prices, home foreclosures. Challenges all, without a doubt. We also witness a drive to downsize government, which is logical as the benefits of technology are leveraged in government, hopefully as effectively as it is in business. 

Government workers are being asked to adapt. As technology has invaded our government agencies, the employee has been asked not only to adapt to technology, but to master it. In a very short time, we have seen the skill of "filing" give way to the required skill of operating document management software.  Nowhere has this transition to technology been any more challenging than in the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims (OJCC).

When the OJCC became a part of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 1, 2001 the OJCC was using eight (8) year old computer hardware technology (some "486" computers remained), with a nine (9) year old operating system (Windows 3.1), to operate commercial case management software that was not designed for a Judicial setting, and generating documents with a seven (7) year old word processor program (WordPerfect 6.1). The only semblance of a computer network between the District Offices was provided by “dial-up” modem connections which required human action at each connecting terminal. Yes, to connect the computers for diagnostic work, an employee had to manually initiate the contact from one personal computer (PC) and another employee in the remote location had to manually accept that connection on another PC.

Also of note, private and commercial access to the internet, had been commonplace since approximately 1995. However, as of October 1, 2001 the OJCC had no presence on the internet. For all intents and purposes, the OJCC had no computer “network” in 2001, and was struggling with antiquated or obsolete computer hardware and software. The staff received daily paper filings, which were date-stamped, sorted, stacked, moved, processed, copied, moved again and filed in overburdened file cabinets in dusty rooms. In retrospect it seems incredible, but at the time it seemed normal.

As the OJCC evolved rapidly into a technology leveraging entity, electronic filing and document management became the norm. This challenged state employees in the OJCC to learn about software and electronic document management. New skills were required,  learned and mastered. As new employees were recruited, a new measure of skills were expected. Job titles like Executive Secretary, Administrative Secretary, and Deputy Clerk remained, but the tasks that each performed daily changed radically. As judges became more self-sufficient, the concept of staff transcribing dictated orders gave way to judges typing final orders and all of the efficiency that entailed.  

This evolution mimicked a "business model." Government can be more efficient if it is run with a business mindset. The OJCC has recognized this, leveraged technology, and evolved. The agency has consistently and increasingly recognized the needs of its customers, a hallmark of successful business. In recent years, the  staff has also been asked to accept that state employment benefits should be delivered more similarly to the method employed by business, with employees contributing part of their pay to their retirement. 

As this transition to a business model has progressed, however, the pay of state employees has been ignored. While Federal and many local employees have seen cost of living adjustments, most state employees have not. As an example, many county employees were included in the recent mandate for contribution of three percent (3%) of their annual pay into the retirement program, just as state employees. However, many of those county employees received corresponding three percent (3%) pay raises simultaneously. The effect being an offset. State employees did not receive that cost of living adjustment. In fact, few cost of living adjustments have been afforded state employees in the last ten years. 

The web is full of inflation calculators. According to one, what cost $26,000.00 in 2000 would cost $33,676.97 in 2012. From the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. This is an increase of about 30% over eleven years, or about two and seven-tenths percent (2.7%) average annual increases. To keep pace with inflation, state workers would have required about 2.7% average cost of living adjustments to keep pace with inflation. Rest assured that State employees have not enjoyed those increases.  

Most are amazed that a state employee would have a take-home pay of $26,000.00. However, more compelling is that this salary figure has not changed markedly in the last decade, and the purchasing power that comes with state employment is eroding consistently and persistently.  

Running a state agency like a business has merit. Employees contributing to their own retirement has merit. Leveraging technology and affording state employees to grow in new job skills has merit. Accepting this, consideration must also be given to the converse, which is that paying these employees appropriately for these new skills also has merit. Gone are the skill requirements of yesteryear, come is the new paradigm and all that entails. Qualified state staff must be retained, and when vacancies occur qualified replacements must be attracted to state employment. This cannot be unless we recognize that with each passing year the purchasing power of these state salaries declines.

Some will conclude that "they should be happy to have jobs," particularly in the current economic times in which we live. That is a valid point. However, the stability of state employment is also not what it used to be. Reductions in force and downsizing are the new norm. Notably, despite these economic times, the OJCC continues to lose trained and effective staff to the private sector and to other government entities that have the ability to provide markedly better compensation and benefits packages. The OJCC recruits and trains, and then loses staff over money. This illustrates that the job market for these skilled workers exists, even if it is not what it used to be.

State employees deserve better. The effectiveness of this agency and others can persevere only so long on the accumulated good will and loyalty of the exceptional people that serve our customers every day.  Knowing that my readers cannot change that, perhaps my readers will take a moment to deliver a kind word or a "thank you" when interacting with these staff.

e-filing is MANDATORY

Electronic filing is mandatory by rule and statute.  The OJCC has delayed enforcing this as we updated our e-JCC platform to accommodate multiple parties, out-of-state accidents and other issues which lawyers identified for us. The OJCC Website and other communications have been warning that enforcement would be occurring soon. Effective April 20, 2012, we will be enforcing the mandatory e-filing requirement.  Paper filing is still permissible for unrepresented parties, but the rule requires that any such paper filing is to be sent to the OJCC Clerk in Tallahassee.  60Q6.108(1). The address changed last year, and the Post Office Box has been closed, check the website for details.

If you file paper documents in violation of the rule, or e-file petition images (PDF) that were not created through our e-PFB tool, the filings will be docketed and you will receive a warning notice on the first occasion.  On subsequent such paper filings by the same attorney, the pleading may be stricken.  If good cause exists for excusing this requirement, filers should explain that good cause in a motion (See Rule 60Q6.115(1), "Any request for an order or for other relief shall be by motion") filed simultaneously with the paper pleading.

Please feel free to contact me at your convenience if you need help registering for or using the e-JCC platform.  We look forward to assisting you with the transition to e-filing.

The notice that will be provided upon the first failure to use the e-filing platform will look substantially like this:

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS

NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED FILING METHOD

Electronic filing by represented parties in workers’ compensation proceedings became mandatory on October 31, 2010.  A hard-copy or facsimile version of the attached pleading was filed with the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims in violation of Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.108(1)(a), and Fla. Stat. §440.192(1) if the pleading is a Petition for Benefits.  Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.108(1)(a) provides in pertinent part:

“All documents filed with the OJCC, except documents filed by parties who are not represented by an attorney, shall be filed by electronic means through the OJCC website.”

            Fla. Stat. §440.192(1) provides in pertinent part:

            “An employee represented by an attorney shall file by electronic means approved by the Deputy Chief Judge. An employee not represented by an attorney may file by certified mail or by electronic means approved by the Deputy Chief Judge.”

The filer is advised that the pleading was docketed, but is warned that subsequent pleadings that are not electronically filed as required may be stricken by order.  The OJCC clerk’s office is available to assist anyone with eJCC registration and use.

Clerk's Office

Division of Administrative Hearings

Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims

1180 Apalachee Parkway, Suite A

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

850-487-1911

Changes in WPB Mediation

West Palm Beach mediations will be handled by more than Ms. DiGennaro and Mr. Langer.

Beginning immediately, the OJCC is reassigning mediations. Mediators Bisbee (TLH), Hardy (PNS), Oramas (PMC) and Suskin (GNS) will be handling WPB mediations.  This is in response to the Legislature's decision not to fund four of our mediator positions for fiscal 2013. Therefore, the vacancy created by the retirement of Charlotte Hill in District WPB will not be filled. WPB has a busy litigation docket, and to alleviate some of that workload on Ms. DiGennaro and Mr. Langer, cases are being reassigned for mediation.  

Obviously the mediation calendars of mediators Bisbee (TLH), Hardy (PNS), Oramas (PMC) and Suskin (GNS) already have appointments on them for their respective Districts.  However, ninety days in the future (after July 1, 2012), their calendars are much more open.  Our process of reassignment will include rescheduling WPB mediations into current schedules of out-of-district mediators and into their schedules after July 1, 2012..  

The long-term process will involve each of the following four mediators having assigned WPB mediation days.  They will cover these days by telephone or videoteleconferencing (at the mediator's discretion). The assignments are as follows:

First and Third Tuesday                 Mr. Hardy, PNS               850.595.6310

First and Third Thursday                Mr. Oramas, PMC           850.872.7774

Second and Fourth Tuesday          Ms. Bisbiee, TLH             850.488.2110

Second and Fourth Thursday         Mr. Suskin, GNS             352.955.2244

Parties and attorneys with questions about mediating with these mediators should contact them directly. It is our goal that the mediations for reassignment will be identified rapidly after the effective petition is filed. Once identified, our staff should be able to set the mediation with one of these "out-of-district" mediators quickly.  The parties will then receive their normal mediation notice from the OJCC Clerk.  

The process for rescheduling prior to July 1, 2012 is slightly different because notices for the medations before July 1, 2012 have generally already been sent.  The OJCC central staff is striving to reset those mediations at the originally scheduled date and time.  In some instances, the date is available on one of the four "out-of-district" mediators' calendars, but the original time is not.  In a few instances neither the date nor time is available on one of the four "out-of-district" mediators' calendars.  Our process is:

1. Attempt to move an identified mediation to the same date and time as reflected for the original mediator.

2. If not possible, attempt to move mediation to the same date as close to the original time as possible.

3. If not possible, move to a date and time as close as possible to the originally scheduled mediation.

All such "rescheduled" mediations will continue to appear on the original mediator's calendar. This facilitates WPB District Staff being aware of parties and attorneys expected to appear. The office of the "out-of-district" mediator will issue amended mediation notices in all instances, so that parties are clearly aware of their mediation time and date, and the identity of the mediator.  

If you have questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.  david_langham@doah.state.fl.us or 850.595.6310