Valera v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valera v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

109 So. 3d 305, 2013 WL 811843, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3622

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-4692

StatusPublished

This text of 109 So. 3d 305 (Valera v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority) 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.

Bluebook

Valera v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 109 So. 3d 305, 2013 WL 811843, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3622 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding both Claimant and the Employer/Carrier (E/C) are prevailing parties, determining the amount of each party’s costs under section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes (2009), and offsetting the two cost amounts, resulting in only one award of prevailing party costs to the E/C. Claimant’s argument is that the JCC erred in offsetting the two cost amounts because doing so was beyond his statutory authority. We agree.

No party challenges the JCC’s finding that each party prevailed on at least one claim in this proceeding. Section 440.34(3) states that “there shall be taxed against the nonprevailing party the reasonable costs of such proceedings.” Matters of enforcement of compensation orders are appropriately resolved in circuit court. See Brown v. Clay Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 43 So.3d 782, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“The court [in Orange County v. New, 39 So.3d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010),] ... [held] an E/C may seek enforcement of the [cost] award as any other debt may be enforced in the appropriate court.”). Accordingly, on remand the JCC will award costs (in the amount he determined to be appropriate) to each party without offsetting the two cost amounts.

REVERSED in part (as to offset), AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding both Claimant and the Employer/Carrier (E/C) are prevailing parties, determining the amount of each party’s costs under section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes (2009), and offsetting the two cost amounts, resulting in only one award of prevailing party costs to the E/C. Claimant’s argument is that the JCC erred in offsetting the two cost amounts because doing so was beyond his statutory authority. We agree.

No party challenges the JCC’s finding that each party prevailed on at least one claim in this proceeding. Section 440.34(3) states that “there shall be taxed against the nonprevailing party the reasonable costs of such proceedings.” Matters of enforcement of compensation orders are appropriately resolved in circuit court. See Brown v. Clay Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 43 So.3d 782, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“The court [in Orange County v. New, 39 So.3d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010),] ... [held] an E/C may seek enforcement of the [cost] award as any other debt may be enforced in the appropriate court.”). Accordingly, on remand the JCC will award costs (in the amount he determined to be appropriate) to each party without offsetting the two cost amounts.

REVERSED in part (as to offset), AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 3d 305, 2013 WL 811843, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valera-v-florida-keys-aqueduct-authority-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack