JOSE VALDES, PETITIONER,
v.
GALCO CONSTRUCTION AND GAB-ROBBINS, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jose Valdes petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) to issue an order on his attorney's fees. The court granted the petition, holding that while a JCC may request proposed orders from parties, the judge cannot withhold or unreasonably delay issuing the final order simply because a party refuses to submit one.
The court held that while a JCC may request proposed orders from parties and parties may elect to forgo submitting them, a JCC cannot withhold or unreasonably delay issuance of the final order as a result. The petition for writ of mandamus was granted and the JCC was directed to issue the order within 30 days.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims may request parties to submit proposed orders, but parties are not entitled to file them.
[2] A party may elect to forgo submitting a proposed order, but doing so may result in delays and potential prejudice on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The JCC, of course, is responsible to ensure that the order reflects his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law, regardless of the proposed orders submitted by the parties.”
Establishes that the JCC's duty to issue a proper final order is independent of whether parties submit proposed orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose Valdes was a workers' compensation claimant represented by attorney Mark L. Zientz. The employer and carrier agreed that attorney fees were due, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having considered respondents’ motion for rehearing or clarification and petitioner’s motion for clarification, we withdraw the opinion of July 26, 2004, and issue the amended opinion set forth below. Except as reflected in this opinion, the parties’ motions are denied.
Workers’ compensation claimant Jose Valdes petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order of this court which would compel the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) to issue an order on a claim for fees for his attorney, Mark L. Zientz. The employer/carrier agreed that a fee was due and a hearing on the question of the amount of the fee was conducted on December 2, 2003. The JCC directed attorneys for both parties to submit proposed orders, but Mr. Zientz and the JCC became embroiled in a controversy over whether Mr. Zientz would submit a proposed order and, if so, its content. The appendix to the petition for writ of mandamus adequately documents the contentious nature of this dispute, which we find unnecessary to otherwise describe in this opinion.
Although parties do not possess a right to file a proposed order, see Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q6-6.103(3), a JCC may request that each party submit a proposed order. We recognize that many JCCs, as a method of administering a heavy caseload, have adopted the practice of requesting counsel to prepare a proposed order. The opportunity to submit a proposed order to the JCC is one which a party, including Mr. Valdes as represented by his counsel, may elect to forgo, although he does so at his own peril. For example, some delay in the issuance of the final order might reasonably be expected, because the JCC must prepare a lengthy final order without the benefit of having that party’s position on the relevant facts and law reduced to writing. Further, the resulting order may contain deficiencies which are prejudicial to that party in the event of appellate review. See United States v. Horsfall, 270 F. 2d 107 (10th Cir.1959).1 The JCC, of course, is responsible to ensure that the order reflects his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law, regardless of the proposed orders submitted by the parties. See Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla.2004); Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Jellison v. Dixie Southern Industrial, Inc., 857 So. 2d 365, 367 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The order must also be rendered in a timely manner. § 440.25(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (2003); Scottie-Craft Boat Corp. v. Smith, 336 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1976).
We find that this is an appropriate circumstance for issuance of a writ of mandamus. Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1982). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is granted and the JCC is directed to issue an order on claimant’s motion for attorney’s fees within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, from issuance of mandate in this cause.
PETITION GRANTED.
WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK, and POLSTON, JJ., concur. . We do not address the questions of whether the JCC has authority to impose sanctions for failure or refusal to submit a proposed order and, if so, what sanctions might be appropriate, because those issues are not before us. We do hold, however, that the JCC may not withhold or unreasonably delay issuance of the order because a party has not submitted a proposed order. See Bean v. Bean, 430 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valdes v. Galco Constr. & GAB, 922 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…had performed on behalf of Mr. Valdes in the workers’ compensation proceedings. The parties could not agree on the amount of such a fee, however, and the matter came on for hearing on December 2, 2003. After some delay, see Valdes v. Galco Constr., 883 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), the judge of compensation claims entered on August 31, 2004, the amended order on attorney’s fees now on review, which determined that Gáleo and GAB were not obligated to Mr. Markus (or to Mr. Valdes on account of Mr. Markus’s w…
-
Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom, 892 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ever, the total of $267,262.50 is correct using $52,500. Since the number of hours and hourly rate for Mr. Lewen are stated, this error is harmless. . In re: B.T., 887 So. 2d 418, 2004 WL 2387097 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.27, 2004); Valdes v. Galco Constr., 883 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Tones v. Torres, 883 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Walker v. Walker, 873 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). . We note one court has even stated, subsequent to Perlow, “We can conceive of no scenario when it would not be possible f…
-
Emerita O. Flores-Orellana v. Circle-K & Constitution State Servs., 151 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…rt, to reset the hearing on the modification matter as referenced in the August 29, 2013, order. The JCC denied the motion on grounds the August 2013 order was final and the time to modify it or amend it had passed. In Valdes v. Gáleo Construction, 883 So. 2d 359, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), this Court issued a writ of mandamus and directed the JCC “to issue an order on claimant’s motion for attorney’s fees within a reasonable time.” This Court having determined that the issuance of an order can be mandated, it…
Authorities Cited
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)
- Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1982)
- Kramp v. Osee R. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- United States v. Waldean Horsfall, 270 F.2d 107 (10th Cir. 1959)
- Scottie-Craft Boat Corp. & Fed. Ins. Co. v. Thomas Smith & the Indus. Relations Comm'n, 336 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1976)
- Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Deana B. Jellison v. Dixie S. Indus., Inc., 857 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Bean v. Bean, 430 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)