Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure

795 So. 2d 863, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 866, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2275, 2000 WL 1508551
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 12, 2000
DocketNo. SC00-731
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 795 So. 2d 863 (Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure, 795 So. 2d 863, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 866, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2275, 2000 WL 1508551 (Fla. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the quadrennial report of The Florida Bar Rules of Workers’ Compensation Procedure Committee (“Committee”) proposing rule changes in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(3). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(2), the proposed changes were submitted to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, and the Board unanimously recommended acceptance of all of the Committee’s proposed changes. The Committee’s proposals were published pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(4), and we received one comment. After reviewing the Committee’s proposals and the comment received, and hearing oral argument, we adopt the Committee’s proposed amendments, with the exceptions noted below.

We adopt the Committee’s proposed amendments to rule 4.025, Claims Not Contained in Petition, and rule 4.065, Motion Practice, which provide that substantive motions are to be filed with the presiding judge of compensation claims when a petition is pending, but with the Division of Workers’ Compensation when there is no petition pending. We further amend rule 4.065 to provide that motions to bifurcate the issues are to be considered procedural motions. Additionally, rule 4.065 is amended to provide that motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution need not contain a certification that opposing counsel has been contacted to resolve the matter without a hearing.

The Committee proposed that rule 4.045, Pretrial Procedure, be amended to provide that the appointment of an expert medical advisor (“EMA”) is an issue that is to be discussed at the pretrial conference. The Committee indicated at oral argument that the intent of the amendment was to have the appointment of an EMA discussed at pretrial if a conflict in medical testimony was apparent at that time. Although we adopt the Committee’s proposed amendment, we have altered the proposed language to reflect that the rule does not preclude the appointment of an EMA after pretrial if a conflict in medical testimony does not arise until after pretrial. See generally Walsdorf Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 719 So.2d 355, 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(motion for appointment of EMA to be made “with reasonable promptness after the disagreement between health care providers [has] surfaced”). However, if the conflict in medical testimony is apparent at pretrial, it should be discussed at that time. We also adopt the remaining Committee proposals to rule 4.Q45, which provide that witness and exhibit lists, supplements, and amendments to the pretrial stipulation are to be served thirty days prior to the final hearing, rather than filed within thirty days as in the present rule. However, these documents may be served after this deadline upon stipulation of the parties or approval of the judge.

[864]*864The Committee’s proposed modification to rule 4.105, Expedited Hearings, is also adopted. This rule is amended to comply with section 440.25(4)(j), Florida Statutes (1999), to indicate that claims of less than ■ $5000 are presumed to be resolvable in an expedited hearing. However, on written agreement of the parties and on application by either party, other claims for benefits may be resolved in an expedited hearing.

We adopt the Committee’s proposals to amend rule 4.115, Orders. Subdivision (c) of this rule is amended to replace a cross-reference regarding retention of jurisdiction with the appellate rule now governing corrections of clerical errors. The portion of this rule indicating that a judge of compensation claims may conduct hearings and enter orders in rule nisi proceedings is deleted to comply with Metropolitan Dade County v. Rolle, 661 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), which held that a judge of compensation claims is not authorized to serve as a special master in rule nisi proceedings.

We adopt the main portion of the Committee’s proposed amendments to rule 4.141, Motion for Rehearing; however, we modify the proposal as follows. The Committee had recommended changing the time limitations for filing a motion for rehearing from twenty days to ten days following entry of the order so that this rule would conform with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) provides ten days to serve a motion for rehearing, rather than ten days to file the motion, we amend the rule to provide that a motion for rehearing be served within ten days of entry of the order. We adopt the Committee’s other proposed amendment to this rule, and amend the rule to provide that the judge of compensation claims, not the mov-ant, has the responsibility to direct the disposition of a motion for rehearing within thirty days after the order is mailed to the parties.

We also adopt the Committee’s proposed amendment to rule 4.143, Settlement Under Section 440.20(11), Florida Statutes. Although we recognize commentator Kevin S. Murphy’s concern regarding an employer/carrier’s interest in fully settling all claims with a claimant, we also recognize the jurisdictional limitations of the judge of compensation claims. As amended, the rule provides that general release language relating to matters other than workers’ compensation issues may not be included in joint petitions and stipulations.1 We note that if this information is material to the judge of compensation claims’ consideration of the joint petition, rule 4.143(d)(4) presently requires that joint petitions be accompanied by any evidence “that is material to the consideration and disposition of the settlement.”

We adopt the Committee’s recommended amendments to the rules regarding mediation in workers’ compensation proceedings. Rule 4.310, Mandatory Mediation, is amended to provide that parties may stipulate to a mutually agreeable mediator for the initial mandatory mediation session instead of having a mediator appointed by the chief judge. Rule 4.370, Conclusion of Mediation, is amended to provide that total or partial agreements following mediation may be signed by either the parties or their attorneys.

We also adopt the Committee’s proposed changes to several forms. Form 4.905* Motion for Ex Parte Payment of Attorney Fees, is amended to include a certification by the movant’s attorney that attorneys’ fees have not been paid by the' employ[865]*865er/carrier, and if a fee is paid by the employer/carrier in the future, the fee provided for in the motion will be reimbursed to the employee.

Form 4.9075, Petition for Benefits, is presently divided into two sections, one for accidents occurring on or before December 31, 1993, and the other for accidents occurring after that date. We adopt the Committee’s proposals to combine these two sections into one and to incorporate a docketing order into this form.

Form 4.910, Uniform Pretrial Stipulation and Pretrial Compliance Questionnaire; Form 4.915, Uniform Special Disability Trust Fund Pretrial Stipulation, Pretrial Compliance Questionnaire, and Order; and Form 4.916, Uniform Pretrial Stipulation and Order for Penalty Cases, are amended in accordance with the Committee’s proposals. As amended, these forms will request parties to provide a witness’s expected area of testimony as well as any objections to this testimony by the opposing party. As the Committee explained at oral argument, this modification will not preclude a witness testifying on an issue not listed on the form in the event of an unexpected change at trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure
891 So. 2d 474 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)
Hauser v. Volusia County Department of Corrections
872 So. 2d 987 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
MIMI/Medpartners, Inc. v. Boestfleisch
822 So. 2d 512 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
795 So. 2d 863, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 866, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2275, 2000 WL 1508551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-workers-compensation-procedure-fla-2000.