In Re Workmen's Compensation Rules of Procedure

343 So. 2d 1273, 1977 Fla. LEXIS 3860
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 17, 1977
Docket50633
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 343 So. 2d 1273 (In Re Workmen's Compensation Rules of 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
In Re Workmen's Compensation Rules of Procedure, 343 So. 2d 1273, 1977 Fla. LEXIS 3860 (Fla. 1977).

Opinion

343 So.2d 1273 (1977)

In re WORKMEN's COMPENSATION RULES OF PROCEDURE.

No. 50633.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 17, 1977.

*1274 Elmer O. Friday, Jr., Chairman, Leander J. Shaw, Jr., Commissioner, and Arthur C. Canaday, Commissioner of the Industrial Relations Commission of Florida, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

By petition the Chairman and members of the Industrial Relations Commission of Florida request this Court to adopt Workmen's Compensation Rules of Practice and Procedure before the Commission and the Judges of Industrial Claims. This petition is authorized under the provisions of Section 440.29(3), Florida Statutes, which was enacted by the Legislature in 1974, Ch. 74-197, § 16, Laws of Florida, and reads as follows:

"The practice and procedure before the commission and the judges of industrial claims shall be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court."

The petition describes the method and manner of the development of these rules by alleging:

"In the spring of 1976, at an assembly of the Judges of Industrial Claims, a committee of three of the Judges was designated to represent them and act as liaison with them in this project, pursuant to which Judges Arthur Seppi, Elwyn Akins, and Alan Kuker were nominated and did serve in that capacity. The Honorable Stephen Marc Slepin, former Chairman of this Commission and as Chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Section of The Florida Bar, actively participated in the development of these rules, and further nominated Steven Rissman to serve as Chairman of the Rules Committee of that Section, with members John Tomlinson and Richard Schwartz, who did serve diligently in behalf of the several hundred members of their Section. The Senior Judge of Industrial Claims of Florida, Thomas J. Carroll, and the members of the Industrial Relations Commission also served as a part of this Joint Rules Committee, the work product of which was, on several occasions, evaluated, debated, modified and thereafter distributed anew for further evaluation and recommendation.
"The Chairman and Members of the Industrial Relations Commission thereafter held public hearings, after notice, in the cities of Fort Lauderdale, Tampa and Tallahassee. After these hearings additional meetings of the Joint Rules Committee were held, and these proposed Rules, in substantially the attached form and format, were approved for recommendation to this Honorable Court for adoption."

The following Workmen's Compensation Rules of Procedure are hereby adopted and shall govern all proceedings within their scope after 12:01 a.m., July 1, 1977. These rules shall supersede all prior Workmen's Compensation Rules of Practice and Procedure.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.

ENGLAND, J., dissents with an opinion.

ENGLAND, Justice, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the Court's adoption of these rules of procedure. In so doing I am well aware that I may incur the enmity of innumerable members of the workmen's compensation trial bar and hosts of well-meaning officials in all branches of state government. Most of these people have had far more familiarity with the law of workmen's compensation than I, and have lived through torturous years developing *1275 procedures designed to provide benefits to injured claimants in a thorough, fair and expeditious manner. I am not insensitive to their desire to create a system of adjudicating workmen's compensation claims which is free of executive branch controls, judicious in its procedures, and administered by persons of dignity and competence. My concern is simply that these goals be achieved within the imperatives of the Florida Constitution.

The Constitution states in terms which are unequivocal that the judicial power of the state shall be vested in the Supreme Court, district courts of appeal, circuit courts and county courts. It goes on to state that "no other courts may be established by the state... ."[1] As if this were not sufficient to limit a diffusion of the state's judicial power, the same provision pointedly extends "quasi-judicial" power to commissions and administrative officers created by law, of which the most pertinent here are the judges of industrial claims and the Industrial Relations Commission. I discern a clear constitutional declaration that these officers have no "judicial power", and that the bodies in which they sit are not "courts".[2]

By what authority, then, do we derive the power to adopt rules of procedure for these administrative tribunals? Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution states that:

"The supreme court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts ... ." (emphasis added)

In 1973 this Court purported to adopt a predecessor set of rules for the Commission on the authority of this provision.[3] The justification for this action was the Court's view that litigation in workmen's compensation cases seems "more judicial than quasi-judicial".[4] (emphasis in the original) It seems clear to me, however, that this provision supplies no authority to adopt the Commission's rules notwithstanding the Court's characterization of the decisional process in this class of suits. The effect is directly contrary to the Constitution, for if this Court can determine at will which of the state's commissions, administrative officers or bodies are exercising powers "more judicial" than "quasi-judicial", Article V, Section 1 has no meaning.

Undoubtedly in part to quell the uncertainty surrounding the status of Commission rules, the 1974 Legislature purported to confer on this Court the authority to adopt rules for workmen's compensation matters.[5] But without constitutional underpinning the statute could not validly confer responsibility here. Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution prohibits the exercise of any power pertaining to one of the three branches of government by any person belonging to one of the other branches.

As stated, an underpinning is not found in Article V, Section 2(a), which limits our rule-adopting authority to "courts". Thus, the 1974 statute is an invalid attempt to delegate non-judicial power to the judiciary unless there exists in the Constitution some other source of authority. My examination of that document reveals none.

I am aware, of course, that Article V, Section 3(b)(7) provides that the Court

*1276 "Shall have the power of direct review of administrative action prescribed by general law."

It is arguable that this language is broad enough to provide the missing legislative authority since the term "administrative action" generally includes the promulgation of agency rules.[6] The adoption of procedural rules by the Industrial Relations Commission, then, would seem to be a form of "administrative action" directly reviewable here.

The problem with this view is that the Commission did not adopt these rules; they presented them to us for adoption. The notion that "direct review" in the Constitution can mean wholesale "adoption" of an integrated set of procedures is seriously defective. If "review" connotes "adoption" for this agency, then our court could by legislative will be vested with responsibility for the adoption of procedural rules for every administrative or executive agency in the state.

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)
Horizon Healthcare v. Murphy
660 So. 2d 1065 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Reddick v. Charles W. Infinger Construction
617 So. 2d 723 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Cormio
388 So. 2d 1238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
In re Florida Workers' Compensation Rules of Procedure
374 So. 2d 981 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
In Re Fla. Wkrs.'compensation Rules, Etc.
374 So. 2d 981 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Myers v. Hawkins
362 So. 2d 926 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Farrell v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.
361 So. 2d 408 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
343 So. 2d 1273, 1977 Fla. LEXIS 3860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-workmens-compensation-rules-of-procedure-fla-1977.