PASCUAL VILLAZANO, APPELLANT,
v.
HORACE BELL HONEY CO. AND AMERITRUST, APPELLEE
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.
Pascual Villazano appealed the dismissal of his verified petition for attorney fees in a workers' compensation case. The court reversed, holding that a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) lacks statutory authority to impose time limitations on filing attorney fee petitions.
The JCC lacks statutory or rule-based authority to set a time limitation for filing verified petitions for attorney fees. The portion of the October 29, 2004 order relating to attorney fees was not final and could not be enforced to bar the petition.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims lacks the authority to set a time limitation for filing a verified petition for attorney fees absent statutory or rule-based authorization.
[2] An order reserving jurisdiction for attorney fees is not a final order for purposes of appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A JCC has no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation on JCC power, requiring specific statutory authorization for all actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the parties resolved all benefit claims in Villazano's workers' compensation case, the JCC issued a Notice of Administrative Closure reserving j…
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 Administrative Closure Of Case cases and more on FLexlaw
[*516] PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Pascual Villazano, seeks review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) dismissing his verified petition for attorney fees. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant filed several petitions for benefits. The parties eventually resolved all of the claims. The parties then advised the JCC’s office that there was no need for a final hearing, but reserved on the issue of attorney fee entitlement. The JCC served Notices of Administrative Closure of Case, which indicated the case would be administratively closed unless a verified petition for attorney fees was filed within 45 days. The notices also advised that all pending petitions for benefits would be subject to dismissal without a hearing unless a party filed an objection.
On October 29, 2004, the JCC entered an order closing the file. In the order, the JCC noted that all of the issues between the parties, other than attorney fee entitlement, had been resolved. Accordingly, the JCC dismissed all of the petitions for benefits pending prior to February 3, 2004. The order also provided:
The Court reserves jurisdiction for attorney’s fees and costs for a period of thirty(30) days. If a verified petition for attorney fees and costs is not filed in this office within thirty (30) days from the date of this order ALL attorney’s fees and costs on these closed/resolved petitions will be dismissed and forever barred by operation of this order. Appellant filed his verified petition for attorney fees on March 2, 2005. The employer/carrier filed a motion to dismiss the verified petition with prejudice. The employer/carrier alleged the petition had to be dismissed because it was not timely filed within the dictates of the October 29, 2004, order. After a hearing was held on the motion to dismiss, the JCC granted the employer/carrier’s motion and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The JCC reasoned that because the October 29, 2004, order was not appealed within 30 days, he was without jurisdiction to modify the earlier order. The portion of the October 29, 2004, order relating to attorney’s fees was not final. City of Hollywood v. Lombardi, 738 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved in part, quashed in part, 770 So. 2d 1196 (Fla.2000); Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim, 728 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Appellant correctly asserts that the JCC did not have authority, pursuant to either statute or rule, to set a time limitation for filing the verified petition for fees. Farhangi v. Dunkin Donuts, 728 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“A JCC has no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute.”); McFadden v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 573 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied 583 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.1991) (“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.”) The employer/carrier’s argument that the JCC had authority to set such a time limitation pursuant to section 440.33(1), Florida Statutes, is not persuasive. We do not address the employer/carrier’s assertion that the JCC had authority to dismiss the petition as a sanction pursuant to section 440.33(2), Florida Statutes, because the JCC did not dismiss the petition on this basis.
We reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.
BARFIELD, BROWNING, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Longley v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Svcs., 82 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…by the statute of limitations, as it was filed while the 2009 PFB was still pending. The E/C argues that because no deadline (other than the statute of limitations) exists for the pursuit of attorney’s fees, see Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co., 928 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), or costs, see Shackleford v. CTL Distribution, 25 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), an active outstanding claim for such should not affect the statute of limitations. On the contrary, here, the fee claim, premised as it was on the…
-
F.T.M.I. Operator, LLC v. Anne Marie Limith, 140 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ssuming one is needed) lies not with an expansion of this court’s certiorari jurisdiction but rather with an amendment to chapter 440 or the 60Q rules to establish deadlines for the adjudication of fee claims, see Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co., 928 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that "the JCC did not have the authority, pursuant to either statute or rule, to set a time limitation for filing the verified petition for fees”); Shackleford v. CTL Distribution, 25 So. 3d 667, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2…
-
Gillislee v. FPL, 929 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…CC), which dismissed his verified petition for attorney’s fees with prejudice, after Claimant failed to file the petition within the time-frame specified by the JCC. We reverse. As we recently held in Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co. & Ameritrust, 928 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), “the JCC did not have authority, pursuant to either statute or rule, to set a time limitation for filing the verified petition for fees.” Although we recognize the JCC was merely attempting to govern his own docket, the Legislat…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Hollywood v. Lombardi, 770 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2000)
- J.W. McFADDEN v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 573 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Boltri v. Singletary, 728 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Nahid Farhangi v. Dunkin Donuts & Associated Indus. Ins. Co., 728 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Se. Recycling & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cottongim, 728 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- City OF Hollywood & Interrisk Concepts v. Lombardi, 738 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)