NAYMA VALERA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY AND FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE, 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.
The court reversed the JCC's offsetting of prevailing party costs between two parties who each prevailed on different claims, holding that the JCC lacked statutory authority to offset costs under section 440.34(3).
A judge of compensation claims lacks statutory authority to offset prevailing party costs awards when both parties prevail on different claims; each party must receive its awarded costs without offset.
[1] A judge of compensation claims lacks statutory authority to offset prevailing party costs awards under section 440.34(3) when both parties prevail on different claims in…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a workers' compensation proceeding, both the claimant and the employer/carrier prevailed on at least one claim each. The JCC determined the reasona…
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 Cost Awards cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding both Claimant and the Employer/Carrier (E/C) are prevailing parties, determining the amount of each party’s costs under section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes (2009), and offsetting the two cost amounts, resulting in only one award of prevailing party costs to the E/C. Claimant’s argument is that the JCC erred in offsetting the two cost amounts because doing so was beyond his statutory authority. We agree.
No party challenges the JCC’s finding that each party prevailed on at least one claim in this proceeding. Section 440.34(3) states that “there shall be taxed against the nonprevailing party the reasonable costs of such proceedings.” Matters of enforcement of compensation orders are appropriately resolved in circuit court. See Brown v. Clay Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 43 So.3d 782, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“The court [in Orange County v. New, 39 So.3d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010),] ... [held] an E/C may seek enforcement of the [cost] award as any other debt may be enforced in the appropriate court.”). Accordingly, on remand the JCC will award costs (in the amount he determined to be appropriate) to each party without offsetting the two cost amounts.
REVERSED in part (as to offset), AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Orange Cnty. & Alternative Serv. v. NEW, 39 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Brown v. The Clay Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Scibal Assocs., 43 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)