BOBBY SHACKLEFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
CTL DISTRIBUTION AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, APPELLEES
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.
In a workers' compensation case, the claimant appealed a final order awarding costs to the employer and carrier. The claimant challenged both the timeliness of the cost motion filed over a year after the final order and the judge's allowance of specific cost items. The court affirmed, holding that Florida law imposes no time limit on cost motions in workers' compensation cases and that the claimant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion regarding the specific items.
The court held that Florida law imposes no time limit on filing a motion to tax costs in workers' compensation cases, and the judge of compensation claims lacks authority to impose such a limit absent explicit statutory or regulatory authority. The court also held that the claimant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion regarding the specific cost items challenged.
[1] A judge of compensation claims lacks the authority to impose a time limitation for filing a motion to tax costs absent explicit authority provided by statute or rule.
[2] There is no specific statutory or rule-based time limit for filing a motion to tax costs in workers' compensation cases in Florida.
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“There is nothing in either section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes (2007) (which directs the assessment of costs against the nonprevailing party), or in Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.124 (2007) (which implements that provision) that purports to place a time limit on the filing of a motion seeking to tax costs.”
Establishes that no statutory or regulatory time limit exists for filing cost motions in workers' compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final order denying the claimant's petition for permanent total disability benefits was filed on November 2, 2007. Over a year later, on November 12…
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 Jurisdiction Of Judge Of Compensation Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, claimant seeks review of a final order awarding costs to the employer and carrier. Claimant complains that the motion to tax costs should have been denied as untimely and that, in the alternative, the judge of compensation claims erroneously rejected claimant’s objections to specific cost items. We affirm.
A final order denying claimant’s petition seeking permanent total disability benefits was filed on November 2, 2007. The employer and carrier did not file their motion seeking to tax costs until November 12, 2008, more than a year later. Claimant objected to the motion as untimely. The judge of compensation claims rejected claimant’s objection, stating that “[tjhere is no specific mandate within [chapter] 440, Florida Statutes, requiring that a cost petition be filed within a finite period of time. Nor is there a timeframe imposed in Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers’ Compensation Adjudications.” He concluded that, “[w]ithout specific authority granted by rule or statute, [he] ha[d] no authority to reject the Employer/Carrier’s Motion to Tax Costs.”
The judge of compensation claims was correct. There is nothing in either section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes (2007) (which directs the assessment of costs against the nonprevailing party), or in Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.124 (2007) (which implements that provision) that purports to place a time limit on the filing of a motion seeking to tax costs. The judge was also correct that he lacked the authority to impose a time limitation absent explicit authority provided by either a statute or a rule. See Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co., 928 So.2d 515, 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that, absent explicit authority provided by either a statute or a rule, a judge of compensation claims may not set a time limitation for filing a verified petition seeking attorney’s fees). See generally 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 1991) (“[u]nlike 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”). Accordingly, we affirm the refusal to reject as untimely the motion seeking to tax costs. However, those entities possessing the power to impose such a time limit might wish to consider the advisability of doing so, as did our supreme court in civil cases by the adoption of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 (which requires that a motion seeking to tax costs be served “no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment ... or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal”). See, e.g., § 440.45(4), Fla. Stat. (2009) (giving the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims the power to “adopt ... procedural rules applicable to workers’ compensation claim resolution”).
*669Claimant also complains that the judge of compensation claims erroneously rejected his objections to specific cost items. We conclude that claimant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the judge of compensation claims as to the specific items challenged. See Morris v. Dollar Tree Store, 869 So.2d 704, 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (stating that rulings of a judge of compensation claims as to specific cost items are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal) (citing McArthur Farms v. Peterson, 586 So.2d 1273, 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue as well.
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO and ROWE, 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)…g. 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 benefit sought in the 2009 PFB, was ripe at the time the benefit was provided; Cl…
-
F.T.M.I. Operator, LLC v. Anne Marie Limith, 140 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ace 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 2010) (holding that JCC lacked authority to impose time limitation on filing of motion for costs, but suggesting that "those entities possessing the power to impose such a time limit might wish to consider the advisability of doin…
-
Pizza HUT v. Giraldo, 41 So. 3d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Shackleford v. CTL Distribution, 25 So. 3d 667, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Vassallo v. Goldwire, 18 So. 3d 670, 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co., 928 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); and cf. Zaldivar v. Florida Transport 1982, Inc., 19 So. 3d 1093, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Morris v. Dollar Tree Store & Specialty Risk Servs., 869 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- 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)
- Pascual Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co. & Ameritrust, 928 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- McARTHUR Farms & Gen. Accident Ins. v. Peterson, 586 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)