Pace v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL, 1D03-1674.
Decision Date | 06 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 1D03-1674.,1D03-1674. |
Citation | 868 So.2d 1286 |
Parties | Donna L. PACE and Philip J. Feldman, Appellants, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL Board and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jay M. Levy, P.A., Miami, and John J. Feldman of Feldman & Getz, LLP, North Miami Beach, for Appellants.
Steven P. Kronenberg of Kelley, Kronenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel & Wander, Miami Lakes, for Appellees.
Appellants challenge an order of the JCC that denied their motion for entry of a final order, found appellant's attorney in violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, and sanctioned the attorney for such violations. We reverse all but the denial of the motion for entry of a final order.
A JCC has no jurisdiction to sanction an attorney for violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. A JCC is "vested only with certain limited quasi-judicial powers relating to the adjudication of claims for compensation and benefits." Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'I Adm'rs, 427 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla.1983). "A JCC has no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute." Farhangi v. Dunkin Donuts, 728 So.2d 772, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). "Unlike a court of general jurisdiction, a judge of compensation claims does not have inherent judicial power but only the power expressly conferred by chapter 440." McFadden v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 573 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see Salony v. S. Fla. Pub. Communication, 734 So.2d 544, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
(. ) Nothing in chapter 440 gives the JCC the authority, power, or jurisdiction to conduct an attorney disciplinary proceeding or sanction an attorney for a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. See § 440.33, Fla. Stat. (2002) ( ).
Further, as this court has recognized, "the Supreme Court of Florida has exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline of attorneys." Bammac, Inc. v. Grady, 500 So.2d 274, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). See Art. V., § 15, Fla. Const. (). See also, e.g., The Fla. Bar v. Flinn, 575 So.2d 634 (Fla.1991)
( ); The Fla. Bar v. Kirtz, 445 So.2d 576, 577 (Fla.1984) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capps v. Industrial Blowpipe
...of general jurisdiction, a judge of compensation claims does not possess inherent judicial power. See Pace v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 868 So.2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Such a judge possesses only the authority expressly set out in chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Id. Section 440.3......
-
Guckenberger v. Seminole County
...claims does not have inherent judicial power but only the power expressly conferred by chapter 440." Pace v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 868 So.2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing McFadden v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 573 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). Thus, "[a] JCC has no aut......
-
Mcarthur v. Mental Health Care Inc./summit Claims Ctr.
...to impose sanctions for such violations. A JCC has only those powers expressly provided by statute. See Pace v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 868 So.2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (explaining that a JCC has “no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute” and......
-
Demedrano v. Labor Finders of the Treasure Coast, Case No. 1D06-6122 (Fla. App. 1/12/2009)
...We affirm. A JCC lacks inherent judicial power, such as that given a court of general jurisdiction. See Pace v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 868 So. 2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The JCC only has the power expressly set out in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Id. Section 440.33(1), Florid......