Jones v. Chiles

638 So. 2d 48, 1994 WL 245612
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 9, 1994
Docket82895
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 638 So. 2d 48 (Jones v. Chiles) 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
Jones v. Chiles, 638 So. 2d 48, 1994 WL 245612 (Fla. 1994).

Opinion

638 So.2d 48 (1994)

John Paul JONES, Jr., etc., Petitioner,
v.
Lawton M. CHILES, etc., Respondent.

No. 82895.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 9, 1994.

Richard A. Sicking, Richard A. Sicking, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.

Deborah K. Kearney and J. Hardin Peterson, Office of Governor, Tallahassee, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

John Paul Jones, Jr., a compensation claims judge, petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this Court to require Lawton M. Chiles, Governor of the State of Florida, to reappoint him to office as required by the reappointment procedure set forth in section 440.45, Florida Statutes (1991). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(8), of the Florida Constitution. We find that the portion of section 440.45(2) that eliminates the Governor's choice in the reappointment of a compensation claims judge is invalid, because it unconstitutionally encroaches on the power of the Governor to appoint executive branch officers. For the reasons expressed, we deny the petition.

The undisputed facts of this case are as follows. In 1972, Jones was appointed to a four-year term as a compensation claims judge to hear workers' compensation cases. Shortly thereafter, the legislature created a process for the merit selection and retention of compensation claims judges. See § 440.45, Fla. Stat. (1975). Under that process, each appellate district had a judicial nominating commission. For initial appointments, the commission submitted to the Governor a list containing the names of three lawyers, and the Governor appointed one of those lawyers to serve a four-year term as a compensation claims judge. Before the expiration of a judge's four-year term, the commission voted whether to retain the judge for another term. If the commission voted not to retain the judge, then the Governor could not reappoint the judge. If the commission voted to retain the judge, then the Governor was required to reappoint the judge to another four-year term. Under this process, Jones has been reappointed to five four-year terms since his initial appointment and was last reappointed by Governor Martinez in 1988.

In 1990, the legislature created a statewide nominating commission to replace the existing district judicial nominating commissions for workers' compensation judges. The retention process remained the same. See § 440.45, Fla. Stat. (1991). In 1992, the new *49 statewide nominating commission voted 8-6 to retain Jones. Governor Chiles, however, has not reappointed Jones to office and has advised that he will not do so. At this time, Jones remains in office, is still performing his duties, and is being paid his state salary. He now files this petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this Court to require the Governor to reappoint him to office as mandated by section 440.45.

Section 440.45 provides in pertinent part as follows:

(1) The Governor shall appoint as many full-time judges of compensation claims to the workers' compensation trial courts as may be necessary to effectually perform the duties prescribed for them under this chapter. The Governor shall initially appoint a judge of compensation claims from a list of at least three persons nominated by a statewide nominating commission. The statewide nominating commission shall be composed of the following: five members, one of each who resides in each of the territorial jurisdictions of the district courts of appeal, appointed by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar from among The Florida Bar members who are actively engaged in the practice of law; five electors, one of each who resides in each of the territorial jurisdictions of the district courts of appeal, appointed by the Governor; and five electors, one of each who resides in each of the territorial jurisdictions of the district courts of appeal, and who are not members of The Florida Bar, selected and appointed by a majority vote of the other ten members of the commission. The meetings and determinations of the nominating commission as to the judges of compensation claims shall be open to the general public. No person shall be nominated or appointed as a full-time judge of compensation claims who has not had 5 years' experience in the practice of law in this state; and no judge of compensation claims shall engage in the private practice of law during a term of office. The Governor may appoint any former judge of compensation claims to serve as a judge of compensation claims pro hac vice to complete the proceedings on any claim with respect to which the judge of compensation claims had heard testimony and which remained pending at the time of the expiration of the judge of compensation claims' term of office. However, no former judge of compensation claims shall be appointed to serve as a judge of compensation claims pro hac vice for a period to exceed 60 successive days.
(2) Each full-time judge of compensation claims shall be appointed for a term of 4 years, but during the term of office may be removed by the Governor for cause. Prior to the expiration of the term of office of the judge of compensation claims, the conduct of such judge of compensation claims shall be reviewed by the statewide nominating commission, which commission shall determine whether such judge of compensation claims shall be retained in office. Evaluation forms to be considered by the commission shall be prepared by the Chief Judge, shall be completed anonymously by each attorney within 45 days from the date of any hearing in which he has participated, and shall be forwarded to the statewide nominating commission. Included in the evaluation shall be questions relating to timeliness of decisions; diligence, availability, and punctuality; neutrality and objectivity regarding legal issues; knowledge and application of law; courtesy toward litigants, witnesses, and lawyers; judicial demeanor; and willingness to ignore irrelevant considerations such as race, sex, religion, politics, identity of lawyers, or parties. A report of the decision shall be furnished to the Governor no later than 6 months prior to the expiration of the term of the judge of compensation claims. If the statewide nominating commission votes not to retain the judge of compensation claims, the judge of compensation claims shall not be reappointed but shall remain in office until a successor is appointed and qualified. If the statewide nominating commission votes to retain the judge of compensation claims in office, then the Governor shall reappoint the judge of compensation claims for a term of 4 years. Judges of compensation claims shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
*50 (3) The judges of compensation claims shall be within the Department of Labor and Employment Security under the secretary of that department.

(Emphasis added.)

As the underlined portion of section 440.45 indicates, "if the statewide nominating commission votes to retain the judge of compensation claims in office, then the governor shall reappoint the judge of compensation claims for a term of four years." (Emphasis added.) Because of this language in the statute, Jones maintains that the Governor must perform the ministerial act of reappointing him given that the nominating commission has voted to retain him in office. The Governor, on the other hand, argues that he need not reappoint Jones to office as required by section 440.45 because the statute violates the separation of powers doctrine by unconstitutionally depriving him of his gubernatorial prerogative to appoint executive branch officers.

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)
Waterman v. State
654 So. 2d 150 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
638 So. 2d 48, 1994 WL 245612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-chiles-fla-1994.