CYNTHIA RICHARDSON, PETITIONER,
v.
ARAMARK/SEDGWICK CMS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court quashed a First District Court of Appeal decision upholding a $1,750 attorney's fee award in a workers' compensation case, finding the statutory fee schedule in section 440.34, Florida Statutes unconstitutional as a violation of due process because it prevents injured workers from challenging the reasonableness of fee awards in their individual cases.
The Court held that the statutory fee schedule is unconstitutional as a violation of due process because it prevents injured workers from challenging the reasonableness of fee awards in their individual cases, which is of serious constitutional concern given the critical importance of reasonable attorney's fees as a key feature of the workers' compensation statutory scheme.
[1] A statutory attorney's fee schedule in workers' compensation cases that prevents an injured worker from challenging the reasonableness of the fee award violates due proce…
[2] A statute that mandates attorney's fees in workers' compensation cases without allowing for deviation based on the reasonableness of the fee award is unconstitutional.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 statute prevents every injured worker from challenging the reasonableness of the fee award in his or her individual case — an issue of serious constitutional concern given the critical importance, as a key feature of the workers' compensation statutory scheme, of a reasonable attorney's fee for the successful claimant”
Establishes the Court's core constitutional concern about the statute's prohibition on individual case challenges to fee reasonableness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCynthia Richardson's attorney was awarded $19.44 per hour for 90 hours of work in a workers' compensation case, totaling $1,750, calculated strictly a…
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 Statutory Fee Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before this Court for review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Richardson v. Aramark/Sedgewick CMS, 134 So.3d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), affirming an attorney’s fee award of $19.44 per hour for 90 hours of work reasonably expended by the claimant’s attorney in a workers’ compensation case. The attorney’s fee was calculated in strict compliance with the conclusive statutory fee schedule in section 440.34, Florida Statutes, which does not allow for any deviation from the statutory fee regardless of how unreasonable the ultimate fee award.
Recognizing the statutory constraints, the First District was bound by its prior jurisprudence to uphold such inadequate fee awards. For example, in Castellanos v. Next Door Co./Amerisure Ins. Co., 124 So.3d 392, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), the First District reviewed a statutory attorney’s fee of “only $164.54 for 107.2 hours of legal work reasonably necessary to secure the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits.” The First District held that the statute “required this result” and that it was “bound by precedent to uphold the award, however inadequate it may be as a practical matter.” Id.
In Castellanos, the First District certified the constitutionality of the workers’ compensation attorney’s fee provision to this Court as a question of great public importance. Id. at 394. We granted re*881view and, in our opinion in Castellanos, held the statute unconstitutional as a violation of due process under both the Florida and United States Constitutions. Castellanos v. Next Door Co., No. SC13-2082, 192 So.3d 431, 432-33, 2016 WL 1700621 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2016). As we explained, the “statute prevents every injured worker from challenging the reasonableness of the fee award in his or her individual case — an issue of serious constitutional concern given the critical importance, as a key feature of the workers’ compensation statutory scheme, of a reasonable attorney’s fee for the successful claimant.” Id. at 435.
In this case, the First District affirmed the $1,750 statutory fee award “[b]ased on” Castellanos and certified that its disposition passed upon the same question certified in Castellanos. Richardson, 134 So.3d at 1134. We accordingly have jurisdiction. See art. V, §§ 3(b)(3), (4), Fla. Const. Because our holding in Castella-nos clearly resolves this issue, we quash the First District’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with Castellanos. See also Pfeffer v. Labor Ready Se., Inc., 191 So.3d 884, 884-85 (Fla.2016); Diaz v. Palmetto Gen. Hosp., 191 So.3d 882, 882-83 (Fla.2016).
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaz v. Palmetto Gen. Hosp., 191 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2016)…d.1 For the reasons explained in our opinion in Castel-lanos, we therefore quash the First District’s decision in Diaz and remand for [*883] further proceedings consistent with Castel-lanos. See also Richardson v. Aramark/Sedgwick CMS, No. SC14-738, 193 So. 3d 880-81, 2016 WL 1704132, slip op. at 2-3 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2016); Pfeffer v. Labor Ready Se., Inc., .No. SC14-1325, 191 So. 3d 884, 882, 2016 WL 1708823, at *1 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2016). It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY,…
-
Pfeffer v. Labor Ready Se., Inc., 191 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 2016)…V, §§ 3(b)(3), (4), Fla. Const. Because our holding in Castellanos resolves this issue, we quash the First District’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with Castellanos. See also Richardson v. Aramark/Sedgwick CMS, No. SC14-738, 193 So. 3d 880-81, 2016 WL 1704132, slip op. at 2-3 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2016); Diaz v. Palmetto Gen. Hosp., No. SC14-1916, 191 So. 3d 882, 882, 2016 WL 1704091, at *1 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2016). It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ.…
Authorities Cited
- Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 192 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016)
- Castellanos v. Next Door Company/Amerisure Ins. Co., 124 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Diaz v. Palmetto Gen. Hosp., 191 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2016)
- Pfeffer v. Labor Ready Se., Inc., 191 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 2016)
- Richardson v. Aramark/Sedgewick CMS, 134 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)