Hughes v. MIGRANDY CORPORATION
This text of 981 So. 2d 1226 (Hughes v. MIGRANDY CORPORATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Stephen M. HUGHES, Petitioner,
v.
MIGRANDY CORPORATION and Aequi Cap, Respondents.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Donald Van Dingenen and Charles W. Smith of Van Dingenen, P.A., Winter Park, for Petitioner.
Derrick Cox of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox, Waranch & Westcott, P.A., Winter Park, for Respondents.
Walter J. Havers of Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, for Judge of Compensation Claims Paul T. Terlizzese.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.
LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
BROWNING, C.J., Dissents with Written Opinion.
BROWNING, C.J., dissenting.
I would grant the writ of prohibition. It seems to me that the motion to disqualify the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) is facially sufficient. The adversarial relationship that has developed between claimant's attorney and the JCC, while unfortunate, gives the claimant ample reason to fear not receiving an impartial ruling from the JCC. The majority opinion "saddles" the claimant with the antithesis of what a litigant should receive: a fair hearing free from substantial doubt concerning a JCC's motivation when deciding an issue. The claimant deserves better here, and I, accordingly, dissent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
981 So. 2d 1226, 2008 WL 2026253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-migrandy-corporation-fladistctapp-2008.