Castellanos v. Next Door Co.
Decision Date | 23 October 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 1D12–3639.,1D12–3639. |
Citation | 124 So.3d 392 |
Parties | Marvin CASTELLANOS, Appellant, v. NEXT DOOR COMPANY/AMERISURE INSURANCE CO., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Richard A. Sicking, Coral Gables, Michael J. Winer of the Law Office of Michael J. Winer, P.A., Tampa, and Mark A. Touby of Touby, Grindal & Chait, P.L., Coral Gables, for Appellant.
Roberto Mendez of the Law Group of Mendez & Mendez, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellees.
Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Orlando, and Richard W. Ervin of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Florida Justice Association, Amicus Curiae.
Geoffrey Bichler of Bichler, Kelley, Oliver & Longo, P.L.L.C., Maitland, for Fraternal Order of Police, Amicus Curiae.
Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, and Kenneth B. Schwartz of Kenneth Schwartz, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Florida Workers' Advocates, Amicus Curiae.
Christopher Smith, Tampa, for the Workers' Compensation Section of the Florida Bar, Amicus Curiae.
Constrained by the statutory formula set forth in section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (2009), the judge of compensation claims awarded claimant's counsel an attorney's fee of only $164.54 for 107.2 hours of legal work reasonably necessary to secure the claimant's workers' compensation benefits. We do not disagree with the learned judge of compensation claims that the statute required this result, and are ourselves bound by precedent to uphold the award, however inadequate it may be as a practical matter.
The judge of compensation claims, as an executive branch adjudicator, was without authority to declare section 440.34 unconstitutional. See Barr v. Watts, 70 So.2d 347, 350–51 (Fla.1953); State ex rel. Atl. Coast Line Ry. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalizers, 84 Fla. 592, 94 So. 681, 683 (1922) ( ); Ariston v. Allied Bldg. Crafts, 825 So.2d 435, 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (); Hensley v. Punta Gorda, 686 So.2d 724, 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ().
The constitutional validity of a statute governing administrative proceedings is instead a question for the reviewing court. “Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to consider such claims in the first instance.” Id. (citing Sasso v. Ram Prop. Mgmt., 431 So.2d 204, 207–08 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), approved452 So.2d 932 (Fla.1984)). See Anderson Columbia v. Brown, 902 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ( ; Grabau v. Dep't of Health, Bd. of Psychology, 816 So.2d 701, 706–07 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) () . See also Cafe Erotica v. Fla. Dep't of Transp., 830 So.2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ( ); Lee Cnty. v. Zemel, 675 So.2d 1378, 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ( ).
In reaching our decision today, we have therefore considered claimant's arguments that section 440.34 should be deemed in violation of several constitutional provisions. Based on our precedent, however, we are bound to conclude that the statute is constitutional, both on its face and as applied. See Kauffman v. Cmty. Inclusions, Inc./Guarantee Ins. Co., 57 So.3d 919, 920–21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Campbell v. Aramark & Speciality Risk Servs., 933 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), disapproved on other grounds by Murray v. Mariner Health, 994 So.2d 1051, 1062 (Fla.2008); Lundy v. Four Seasons Ocean Grand Palm Beach, 932 So.2d 506, 509–10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), disapproved on other grounds by Murray, 994 So.2d at 1062;Wood v. Fla. Rock Indus. & Crawford & Co., 929 So.2d 542, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), disapproved on other grounds by Murray, 994 So.2d at 1062. In Kauffman, we recognized that section 440.34 was amended in 2009 in response to the supreme court's decision in Murray and noted that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Castellanos v. Next Door Co.
...this result” and that the court was “bound by precedent to uphold the award, however inadequate it may be as a practical matter.” Castellanos, 124 So.3d at 393. In so doing, the First District recognized that there were important constitutional issues presented by this case that warranted t......
-
Miles v. City of Edgewater Police Dep't/Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions
...would be inadequate to compensate her attorney in the event she prevailed on the claim, which is the issue in Castellanos [v. Next Door Co., 124 So.3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ] and was also the issue in the Emma Murray [v. Mariner Health, 994 So.2d 105 [1051] (Fla.2008) ] decision. Rather, ......
-
Pfeffer v. Labor Ready Se., Inc.
...unelaborated opinion, the First District affirmed the statutory fee award “[b]ased on” its decision in Castellanos [v. Next Door Co./Amerisure Ins. Co., 124 So.3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ] and certified that its disposition passed upon the same question certified in Castellanos. Pfeffer, 15......
-
Pfeffer v. Labor Ready Se., Inc., 1D13–4779.
...of great public importance. Pfeffer v. Labor Ready Se., Inc., 155 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 124 So.3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ). The Florida Supreme Court has now quashed our decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its decisio......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...Cent. Fla. Aluminum Prods., Inc., 402 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981); see also Castellanos v. Next Door Co./Amerisure Ins., 124 So. 3d 392, 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013), quashed by 192 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016); Kauffman v. Cmty. Inclusions, Inc./Guarantee Ins., 57 So. 3d 919, 92......