Aguilar v. Kohl's Dep't Stores Inc.
Decision Date | 23 August 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 1D11–0767.,1D11–0767. |
Citation | 68 So.3d 356 |
Parties | Karen AGUILAR, Appellant,v.KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and Sedgwick CMS, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Laurie T. Miles of Smith, Feddeler, Smith & Miles, P.A., Lakeland, Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Orlando, and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.Courtney Collins Bahe of Kelley, Kronenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel, Wander, Bamdas, Eskalyo & Dunbrack, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.PER CURIAM.
In this workers' compensation case, Claimant challenges a ruling of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying her claim for entitlement to prevailing party costs under section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes (2007). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the ruling on costs, and remand for further proceedings.
The claims before the JCC for adjudication included authorization of psychiatric care with Dr. Walker, payment for Dr. Walker's past care, temporary indemnity benefits, penalties and interest on late payment of indemnity benefits, attorney's fees, and costs. In the final order, the JCC denied authorization of care with Dr. Walker and payment of past medical bills of Dr. Walker, but awarded temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits and attorney's fees for obtaining TPD benefits. The JCC also denied costs, finding “neither party was a prevailing party.” The JCC erred for two reasons.
First, the JCC's order is inconsistent. The JCC awarded attorney fees based on a finding that Claimant prevailed on the claim for TPD benefits, contradicting her later finding that neither party prevailed. The award of costs to a prevailing party is mandatory under section 440.34(3). See Punsky v. Clay County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 60 So.3d 1088, 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ( ). Thus, remand is required. See Mitchell v. XO Comm'ns, 3 So.3d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ( ).
Second, the JCC's order is premature. To determine which party prevailed, more specific evidence is needed than was available here. To that end, the parties should be permitted to present evidence, via motions as described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q–6.124(3), of the specific costs incurred and both their reasonableness and their relevance to all claims presented, including those resolved in Claimant's favor pretrial—because such a resolution constitutes a “successful prosecution” of the claims. See Mitchell v. Sunshine Cos., 850 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ( ). Without this evidence, a JCC's mere observation of the issues brought to final hearing can be a poor measure by which to determine the “prevailing party.”
We acknowledge, also, that the JCC is not limited to finding that only one party (or neither party) prevailed. The unique nature of workers' compensation proceedings, wherein a sequence of (often non-competing) claims and defenses is normally consolidated into a single hearing, creates the potential for a party to be both prevailing and nonprevailing, relative to different claims in the same proceeding. Moreover, the different types of workers' compensation benefits resist comparison and distillation to determine an overall victor—for example, some awards consist of medical care, the value of which is not solely monetary but is found in a non-quantifiable improvement in quality of life. Section 440.34(3) contemplates this peculiar complexity of workers' compensation litigation and provides that costs will be taxed against the nonprevailing party “[i]f any party should prevail in any proceedings” before a JCC, language which is more expansive than prevailing party statutes found elsewhere in Florida law. Cf. § 713.29, Fla. Stat....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jennings v. Habana Health Care Ctr.
...1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). An award of costs to a prevailing party is mandatory under the statute. See Aguilar v. Kohl's Dep't Store Inc., 68 So.3d 356, 357–58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing Punsky, 60 So.3d at 1093 ). "If any party should prevail in any proceedings before a[JCC] ... there shal......
-
Tampa Bay Downs, Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation
...to only a share of that awarded under an aggregate $50,000 cap solely because of the consolidation. Cf. Aguilar v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., 68 So. 3d 356, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (rejecting a statutory interpretation in a workers' compensation case that "would provide a disincentive to th......
- Leon v. State
-
Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Board/Broadspire v. Kubik
...to tax costs and denied the E/SA's motion to tax costs. This ruling conflicts with the recent opinion in Aguilar v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 68 So.3d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). In Aguilar, this court explained that “the JCC is not limited to finding that only one party (or neither part......