GEORGE BRASCOM, APPELLANT,
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE/COMMERCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT, INC., 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 this workers' compensation appeal, the court affirmed the Judge of Compensation Claims' award of prevailing party costs to the Employer/Carrier for a pre-deposition conference between counsel and an independent medical examiner. The court held that the current Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs do not prohibit such costs, distinguishing the case law relied upon by the claimant.
The Judge of Compensation Claims did not abuse her discretion in awarding the costs. The current Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs do not include a prohibition against taxing charges made by expert witnesses for conferences with attorneys prior to trial, unlike the guidelines in effect when Centex-Rooney was decided.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims is obligated to consider the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions when determining the reasonableness of an…
[2] The current Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs do not prohibit the taxation of costs for conferences between an attorney and an independent medical examin…
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“the JCC is obligated to consider pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.124(3)(e) when "determining the reasonableness of an award of cost reimbursement,"”
Establishes the JCC's obligation to apply the Uniform Guidelines when determining reasonableness of cost awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Employer/Carrier sought reimbursement for costs associated with a pre-deposition conference between its counsel and its independent medical examin…
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 Statewide Uniform Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) abused her discretion in awarding certain prevailing party costs to the Employer/Carrier (E/C). Upon review of the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions, which the JCC is obligated to consider pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.124(3)(e) when “determining the reasonableness of an award of cost reimbursement,” we hold that the JCC did not abuse her discretion in awarding the costs at issue here. We write to explain why we conclude that the case relied upon by Claimant to challenge the JCC’s award of costs for the pre-deposition conference between counsel for the E/C and the E/C’s independent medical examiner is not controlling.
Specifically, Claimant argues that, based on the authority of Centex-Rooney Construction Co. v. Martin County, 725 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), it is clear that the JCC erred in awarding the costs relating to this conference. In Centex-Rooney, the district court reversed the award of the cost for conferences with an expert prior to trial, based on case law and the Uniform Guidelines. Id. at 1261. The language in the Uniform Guidelines in effect at the time Centex-Rooney was decided, however, stated that “[c]harges made by expert witnesses for reports submitted to or conferences with attorney prior to trial .... should not be taxed.” See Reeser v. Boats Unlimited, Inc., 432 So.2d 1346, 1349 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The guidelines in effect now do not include such a prohibition. See In re Amendments to Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So.2d 612, 616 app. (Fla. 2005). Thus, it was within the JCC’s discretion to award such costs and we find no basis to determine that the JCC abused her discretion in so doing. Accordingly, the order is AFFIRMED.
VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Fam. Enters., Inc., 77 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…nd necessarily spent when conferring with counsel and in formulating his or her expert opinion through examination, investigation, testing, and/or research. See, e.g., Brascom v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriffs Office/Commercial [*232] Risk Mgmt., Inc., 65 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (Guidelines did not prohibit award for expert’s time expended in pretrial conference with counsel; it was within trial court’s discretion to grant such award). However, on remand, we caution the trial court that the supreme court…
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments to Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2005)
- Centex-Rooney Constr. Co., Inc. v. Martin Cnty., 725 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Dick Reeser and Margaret Reeser v. Boats Unlimited, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)