In re: Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules

The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court. <

Robert Flamily v. City of Orlando

SC06-847

>> GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME
TO THE SUPREME COURT, PLEASE BE
SEATED.
>> OKAY.
THE NEXT CASE ON OUR CALENDAR
THIS MORNING IS FAMILY V. CITY
OF ORLANDO.
MR. SANDERS?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
SANDERS FOR THE PETITIONER.
>> OKAY.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION THAT I NEED
BOTH OF YOU TO ANSWER ON THIS
ONE.
I'M CONCERNED WITH OUR
JURISDICTION.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> THE ONLY WAY I SEE THAT
YOU'RE HERE IS THAT THERE ARE
CASES FROM CIRCUIT COURT SAYING
CIRCUIT COURTS CAN'T DO ANYTHING
WITH REGARD TO THESE
SETTLEMENTS, HAVE NO
JURISDICTION OVER IT.
AND NOW WE HAVE A COURT SAYING
THAT THE COMPENSATION COMMISSION
HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER IT.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I SEE
THAT WE'RE HERE.
THE OTHER ONES, I DON'T SEE ANY
CONFLICT ON.
YOU TELL ME, IS THAT A CONFLICT,
A DIRECT CONFLICT SUFFICIENT FOR
OUR JURISDICTION, OR IS IT NOT?
THAT SAME QUESTION I POSE TO
BOTH SIDES.
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T GET OVER
THIS ONE, WE OUGHT NOT BE HERE.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR, I APPRECIATE
YOUR CONCERN.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DISTRICT
COURTS OF APPEAL THAT HAVE RULED
UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FOR
COMPENSATION CASES IS IN THE
COMPENSATION COURT UNDER THE
JCC, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE
DEPENDING ON WHEN WE'RE LOOKING
AT.
>> SO THIS MAN CANNOT GO INTO
CIRCUIT THE COURT CHALLENGE THAT
SETTLEMENT?
>> WE DON'T KNOW.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE IMPLIES WHAT
HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO, AND THEY
DECLINED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION
FOR US.
>> CAN YOU SHARE WITH ME, THEN S
THERE ANY OTHER PLACE OTHER THAN
AN ARTICLE 5 COURT WHERE HE CAN
GO?
IS THERE ANY OTHER PLACE?
>> AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL HE MAY
BE ABLE TO GO TO CIRCUIT COURT
TO SET ASIDE THE AGREEMENT, BUT
THE ISSUE HERE TODAY AS FAR AS
WHY THERE'S JURISDICTION HAD TO
DO WITH YOU HAVE THE FIRST DCA
SUDDENLY DECIDING THAT JCCs NO
LONGER HAVE JURISDICTION OVER --
COMPENSATION CLAIM SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS ONLY WHERE A CLAIMANT
IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
MEANWHILE, ALL THE OTHER
DISTRICT COURTS HAVE RULED OVER
THE YEARS THAT THE EXCLUSIVE
COMPENSATION OVER THESE MATTERS
IS WITHIN THE --
>> MY PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT IN
A GENERAL SENSE THAT COULD BE A
CONFLICT, BUT IT'S BECAUSE THE
FIRST DISTRICT RULED ON THIS
ISSUE AS A RESULT OF THE
SPECIFIC STATUTE THAT HAD BEEN
PASSED.
AND THEY WERE INTERPRETING A
STATUTE.
AND THE STATUTE IS NOT ONE THAT
WAS INTERPRETED BY ANY OTHER
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL.
AND WE HAVE THIS OFTEN WITH
FIRST DISTRICT OPINION THAT IS
THE ONLY WAY THESE CASES END UP
COMING UP IS IF THEY CERTIFY A
QUESTION, WHICH THEY DO ON
OCCASION.
SO IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT
ISSUE, THAT IS AS FAR AS
EXPRESSING DIRECT CONFLICT ON A
PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT IS AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE
YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THERE ARE
NO OTHER CASE THAT IS GO
CONTRARY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
OF APPEALS.
>> ON THAT STATUTE, OF COURSE
NOT, BECAUSE NO OTHER COURT
WOULD BE ASKED TO INTERPRET THAT
STATUTE.
>> WE DON'T GET TO THAT POINT,
SO THAT'S --
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> THESE ARE KEY ISSUES.
>> THE HEAD JUSTICE IS CORRECT,
AND YOU BRING UP A POINT THAT
HAS CONCERNED US FOR QUITE SOME
TIME.
THE FIRST COURT TO GET CONFLICT
ALONG AND DIRECT AND EXPRESS
CONFLICT ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT
YOU'RE USED TO, IT'S VERY, VERY
DIFFICULT.
THEREFORE, IN THE FIRST DCA, A
DE FACTO BECOMES THE --
>> BUT THE INSTITUTION DOESN'T,,``%%
PROVIDE.
>> HAS DECIDED WORKER'S COMP
CASES, SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE
ALWAYS THE COURT OF LAST REPORT,
BUT UNDER OUR SYSTEM, THE DCAs
ARE DESIGNED TO BE THE COURTS OF
LAST RESORT ANYWAY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR,
AND I WOULD STATE THIS COURT AS
THE FINAL ARBITER ON WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS AND MEANS HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHAT IS
OR WHAT IS NOT A DIRECT AND
EXPRESS CONFLICT.
>> WELL, THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE,
BUT HOW CAN WE DECIDE THERE IS A
CONFLICT WHEN THE ONLY REAL
ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE CHANGE
IN THE WORKER'S COMP STATUTE HAS
DIVESTED THE JUDGE OF
COMPENSATION CLAIM HAD BEFORE
THE AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTE?
THAT'S THE PRECISE ISSUE, RIGHT?
AND AS YOU SAY, I DON'T SEE HOW
THAT CAN CONFLICT WITH ANY OTHER
DECISION.
>> WELL, THAT IS THE ISSUE
SOMEWHAT.
HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
HERE IS WHAT IS THE SUMMIT
MATTER JURISDICTION OF JUDGES OF
COMPENSATION CLAIMS?
THE DISTRICT COURTS HAVE
ROUTINELY HELD THAT THE SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION IS ALL
WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIMS AND
THE JURISDICTION IS -- THAT
STATUTE.
THAT'S THE CONFLICT.
IT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT IS THE
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF
JUDGES OF KEN SAYS CLAIMS.
>> DOES THE CONFLICT
JURISDICTION DEPEND ON WHETHER
IT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTE OR ANYTHING ELSE WHEN
IT'S DECLAT0KD8>> WE BELIEF A MISAPPLICATION
OF LAW AND BASICALLY THEY ARE
CONFLICTING THEY ARE SAYING
ALL OF A SIPD OUT OF BLUE FOR
THE FIRST TIME EVER THEY ARE
A, INTERPAT THE TIMING THIS
STATUTE IN A WAY NEVER
INTERRUPTED BEFORE.
>> IF YOU GET INTO SO THE TRIE
ENTERINGS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO
HAVE YOUR CASE HEARD IT IS
PRETTY CLEAR BECAUSE IT IS
FIRST TIME IF THIS IS NOT, A
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION,
ABSENT THE STATUTORY KIND OF
PERCEPTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PERCEPTION, THEN DOESN'T -- $$
INP INTERPRETATION DOESN'T
SEEM OUR COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION TO GET INTO THIS
THIS IS REALLY THIS IS I THINK
BIG ISSUE THAN YOU THINK IT
WILL IS
>> YOUR HONOR IPED IT IS A
VERY BIG ISSUE, AND THAT IS
WHY WE WERE -- PRESENTLY --
SURPRISED WHEN THIS COURT DID
TAKE JURISDICTION THE BELIEVE
THE COURT AGREED WITH US AT
LEAST JUSTICES INVOLVED IN
THAT DISCUSSION, WERE AS THAT
THIS WAS A CASE, INVOLVING,
WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION, OF JUDGES OF
COMPENSATION CLAIMS OF.
>> IS THERE ANY CAN REQUEST AT
THE COURT LEVEL TO CERTIFY A
QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE.
>> WE DID, YOUR HONOR, WE
ASKED FOR A CLARIFICATION,
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN WE ASKED
FOR REHEARING, EN BANC BECAUSE
THIS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE YOU
ARE DEALING WITH JURISDICTION
AND YOU ARE CONFLICTING WITH
YOUR OWN OPINIONS, THAT HAVE
APPEARED IN THE PAST,
REGARDING THIS VERY STATUTE.
>> YOU ASKED FOR
CERTIFICATION.
>> YES WE DID YES WE DID.
>> --
>> GOT NOTHING BUT SILENCE BUT
A DEPRESSED, DENIED, DENIED --
DENIED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
DENIED,DENIED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DENIED,DENIED, DENIED THAT IS
WHY WE CAME HERE AS COURT OF
LAST RESORT WE WERE HOPING
THAT THE FIRST DCA WAS NOT
GOING TO BECOME DE FACTO
SUPREME COURT IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA BUT DETERMINE WHAT IS
OR WHAT IS NOT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE JUDGE OF
THE COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
>> OUT OF QUESTIONS -- YOU
FELL YOU HAVE ADEQUATELY$$!!!!IDRESS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
ADEQUATELIDRESSED THAT PROCEED
TO WHATEVER OTHER ARGUMENTS
YOU THINKER WHO ARE.
>> THANK YOU YOUR HONOR AS
COURT MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW
SADLY MR. -- PASSED WAY A FEW
WEEKS AGO.
>> WAS THERE A PROPER
NOTIFICATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOTIFICATION, OF DISASTER
FILED IN THIS CASE.
>> WE -- OF DEATH.
>> SUGGESTION OF DEATH HAS
THERE EVEN BEEN SUBSTUGS OF
PROPER PARTIES NOT YET WE HAVE
90 DAYS FROM THE FILE OF
SUGGESTION IS TO DO A STUGS.
>> IS IT REQUIRED FOR OUR
JURISDICTION, THAT THAT BE
FILED, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH
THIS CASE, WITH OR WILL
ARGUMENT OR CAN BEING A ANY
FURTHER.
>> NO YOUR HONOR WHAT WE HAVE
HERE IS THERE WAS A JUDGMENT
BELOW, AND THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OVER THE JUDGMENT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY --
>> OKAY, AND IN HIS STEAD, IS
HIS FAMILY, SOME OF HIS --
BRETHREN WHO ARE HERE TODAY,
AND OF COURSE, AS I'M INSURE
WE IN OUR BY NOW AS JUSTICE
CANTERO STATED THE ISSUE IS
DID THE FIRST DCA ERR IN FIND!!$$!!!!!!
FINDING THE 2001 AMENDMENTS TO
FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 440,
2011 STRIPPED THE JUDGES OF
COMPENSATION CLAIMS OF
JURISDICTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JURISDICTION, TO SET ASIDE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS OR
SPECIFICALLY HERE ARE THEY
STRIPPED OF JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION TO VACATE THE OF
AED PRIOR JCC APPROVING A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WE
RESPECTFULLY ASSERT THE DCA
RULING WAS IN FACT IN ERROR
AND THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD
REVERSE, FLAMILY THE FLAMILY
OPINION AND OVER ROOULT,!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROOULT,99SHRINKO V. SUNSHINE
COMPANIES THE CASE THE FLAMILY
PANEL BASE THIRD DECISION ON
BASICALLY REAFFIRMING THAT
THIS -- THERE IS NO MORE
JURISDICTION ANYMORE FOR JCC$$'S
WHICH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
AND I WOULD BEG THE COURT TO
INDULGENS THAT IS SPECIFIC
ISSUE, IF THE COURT WOULD JUST
KEEP IN MIND VERY BRIEFLY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT GOT US
HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THERE WAS A HEPATITIS C CLAIM
BROUGHT TO THE JCC, ONE OF THE
DEFS -- DEFENSE RAISED TO
BLOCK HEPATITIS C CLAIM WAS
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A
HEARING WAS HELD.
IT WAS FOUND THERE WERE
MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THAT
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAD
GONE BEFORE THE FIRST JCC
JUDGE WILLIS, THAT THOSE
MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE IN
FACT MATERIAL.
ALSO THERE, WAS A FAILURE ON
THE PART OF THE $$CITY'S PRIOR
ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE -- PER
REQUEST DOCUMENTS THAT THE
RECORD SHOWS WERE IN THAT
ATTORNEY'S POSSESSION, AND
THEY WERE MATERIAL DOCUMENTS
THAT WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THIS
CLAIM IMMEASURABLY NOT JUST
VALUE OF THE CLAIM, BUT THE
NATURE OF THE CLAIM, AND ALSO,
WENT TO WHAT WAS WAS NOT
PRESENTED TO THE JUDGE OF
COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
SO SISHL -- FRAUD ON THE
COURT, THE FOUNDATION OR IN
THE FIRST DCA$$'S OPINION HERE,
WAS AS I NOTED THE MORE --
SHANKO CASE SHANKO SAID THAT A
JCC!!$$!!!!
JCC, ONLY HAS THOSE POWERS,
THAT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN
CHAPTER 440, SINCE 440 DOES
NOT PRI AN EXPRESS AUTHORITY
FOR A JCC, TO APPROVE, OR SET
ASIDE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
WHEN A CLAIMANT IS REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL HE CAN'T DO IT ANY
MORE THERE IS NO JURISDICTION.
>> THAT IS BECAUSE THE STATUE
WAS AMENDED TO -- AMENDED TO
SAY A APPROVAL OF A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED AND
THE FIRST DCA READ THAT TO SAY
IT IS NOT PERMITTED EITHER.
>> THAT IS CORRECT YOUR HONOR
ONE OF OUR ARGUMENT IS
REQUIRED MEANS TOUGH DO IT NOW
DON'T YOU HAVE TO DO IT AS
OPPOSING COUNSEL RIGHTEDLY
ARGUED IN THEIR BRIEF THIS AS
THIS THIS WAS A STREAMLINE$$!!!!ING
AMENDMENT UNDER OLD SYSTEM JCC
WOULD HAVE A GIANT STACK OF
PAPERS ON THEIR DESK WITH
ATTACHMENTS TO A SETTLEMENT
STIPULATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STIPULATION, AND THEY WOULD
HAVE TO APPROVE EACH ONE,
INDIVIDUAL!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INDIVIDUALLY, EVEN THOUGH BOTH
PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.
AND IF YOU READ THE
LEGISLATIVE NODS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOTES THEY
ALL SAID IN THE STAFF NOTES
THAT WERE ATTACHED TO MY BRIEF
THEY ALL SAY THAT NOW WE ARE
REMITTED BY COUNSEL THE JCCS
DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE THEM
ANYMORE THEY DON'T HAVE TO
HAVE A HEAR ANY MORE THEY ARE
DON'T HAVE TO.
>> THOSE TWO WORDS ARE USED IN
ALL OF IT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
BUT MORE --
>> HOW -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
UNDER 440.30 OR 33, THAT WAS
THE STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE
JUDGE'S REVIEWING THESE KINDS
OF AGREEMENTS, ORIGINALLY; IS
THAT CORRECT.
>> NO YOUR HONOR WITH ALL DO
YOU RESPECT THE 44033 COMES IN
THAT IS A POSSIBLE SOURCE FOR
WHERE THE POWER TO SET ASIDE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IN THE
PAST WAS.
THAT WAS RAISED$$!! AS AS
POSSIBILITY IF YOU LOOK AT
SHANKO WHAT THEY ARE SAYING
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY
TALK ABOUT EXPRESS AUTHORITY,
THE WORDING IN THAT CASE, IS
BECAUSE 4402011C, DOES NOT
GIVE THE JCC THE AUTHORITY TIE
PROVE, HE CAN'T SET ASIDE,
OKAY?
SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS, THAT WHAT
THEY ARE SAYING IS IMPLICIT IN
THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE, THAT
IS WHERE YOU GET THE AUTHORITY
TO SET ASIDE.
SO WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IN ALL
OF THESE OLD CASES, WHERE JCC!!$$!!!!$$
JCC'S ROUTINELY SET SAYSIDE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS UNDER
STATUTORY GROUNDS AND THE
FIRST DCA EITHER UPHELD SAY
ITSIDESOR REMANDED INSTRUCTING
JCC TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THE
FACTORS INVOLVED IN THAT CASE,
THAT JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE!!$$!!!!!!!!
ASIDE, WAS IMPLIED.
>> IN THE AUTHORITY TIE PROVE.
>> THAT OTHER STATUTORY
PROVISION REALLY DOESN'T COME
INTO PLACING IN THIS KIND OF
SITUATION?
WE THINK IT DOES, BECAUSE --
IT IS DEPENDS HOW YOU READ
MORE SHANKO BAFFLED ALL OF US
BECAUSE THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT
THAT THE AUTHORITY, EVEN
THOUGH TOUGH HAVE EXPRESS
AUTHORITY TO DO SOMETHING --
WE ARE IMPLING THE AUTHORITY
TO DO THIS, IMPLYING THE
AUTHORITY TO DO THIS CAME YOU
WILL WITH THE AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE, NO VERSION OF 40 --
44020 AT ALL SINCE INCEPTION
EVER EXPRESSLY PROVIDED
AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE A
WORKERS COMP SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT IF THAT IS THE CASE
AND IT WAS NEVER EXPRESSLY IN
THE STATUTE, THE FIRST DCA
THAT IS INSISTING UPON EXPRESS
AUTHORITY, IF THAT IS THE
CASE, THREATEN MUST HAVE BEEN
IMPLIED WITHIN THE AUTHORITY
TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, OR PERHAPS MORE
LOGICALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOGICALLY, WITHIN 44033, WHICH
PROVIDES ESSENTIALLY AS
OPPOSING COUNSEL PUT THE
GENERAL POWERS NECESSARY, TO
MOVE A CASE ALONG, OR WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE A JCC
IT IS A WORKERS COMP PLAME.
>> WHERE DOES THIS THIS
PARTICULAR SETTLEMENT FIT?
IN THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
CHANGE OF THE STATUTE?
>> THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
ITSELF, WAS ENTERED INTO, IN
1996 OF MY.
LONG PRIOR TO THE 40 --
4402011 AMENDMENT AND AT THAT
TIME!!$$!!!!!!
TIME.
>>.
>> PROCEEDED THEN, UNDER, THE
-- THE PRACTICE WHICH WAS IN
PLACE, THAT -- THAT THE JCC
APPROVED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
APPROVED.
>> THAT IS CORRECT YOUR HONOR,
AT THAT TIME AND AS YOU I'M
SURE ARE AWARE THE FORMER JCC
THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY APPROVED
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
TESTIFIED THAT YES, AT THAT
TIME,I HAD LEGAL REQUIREMENT A
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT TO
APPROVE A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, HE TESTIFIED ABOUT
HAVING TO HAD TO BE SOMETHING
ATTACHED TO THE SEMENT
AGREEMENT REGARDING MMI DATE,
OTHER FACTORS THAT HE WOULD
LOOK AT HOW MUCH WHAT TYPE OF
CASE IT IS PERMANENT IM35IR
MEANT RATINGS WORK
RESTRICTIONS ALL THINGS THAT
WERE MISREPRESENTED IN THIS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER,
THAT MR. FLAMILY SIGNED THIS
AGREEMENT, BEFORE THOSE BLANKS
WERE FILLED IN.
>> IS THE RULE OF LAW, THAT
YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IF THIS
COURT CONTINUESP ALONG THIS
PATH, IN THIS CASE, TO DECIDED
THE CASE, THAT WHERE THE JCC
ACTUALLY APPROVED THE
SETTLEMENT THAT THE JCC
CONTINUES TO HAVE THE POWER TO
UNDUE THE SETTLEMENT?
IS THAT -- THE THEORY THAT YOU
ARE PROCEEDING ON.
>> WE ARE -- WE ARE CONTENDING
THAT THE JYC'S WERE NEVER
STRIPPED OF THE AUTHORITY SET
ASIDE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IF
YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF NEATS --
>> WHAT -- WHAT ABOUT --
SETTLEMENT AFTER THE 2001 --
>> STILL, BECAUSE REMEMBER,
440 REALLY THE OENL CHANGE THE
ONLY CHANGE AT THAT YOU WILL
WAS MADE BETWEEN 1996, 2001
AND --
>> RIGHT IT IS?
>> ONLY PLACE TO GO -- WITH
REFERENCE TO IF THERE IS AN
ISSUE ABOUT WHATEVER.
>> RIGHT.
>> THE GROUNDS FOR SETTING
ASIDE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AGREEMENT --
>> YOU GO TO THE JCC.
>> COMP JUDGE.
>> RIGHT.
>> HOW IS THE AGENCY -- HOW IS
THE AGENCY INTERPRETED THE
CHANGE THE DOAH, OR ANY
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
>> I -- I ASSUME YOU ARE
REFERRING TO THE -- 62 RULES
AS WE CALL THEM, APPARENTLY,
THEY INTERPRETED IT AS THIS
INTERESTING I'M GLAD YOU
BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE WHAT
THEY ARE SAYING IS A JUDGE AE
COMPENSATION CLAIMS CAN ONLY
APPROVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WHERE THE ONE OR ONE OF THE
PARTIES SAYS THIS DO IS --
DOES AIN'T PLY TO ME FOR WHAT!!$$!!!!!!
WHATEVER REASON, OKAY IF THAT
IS THE CASE, PRESUMABLY THE
JYC HOLDS A HEARING, AND
DECIDES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
DECIDES, YES, THERE WAS A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IT IS A
BINDING YOU ARE STUCK.
WELL, INTERESTINGLY, IF YOU
CAN DO THAT, YOU CAN ALSO FIND
THERE WAS NO SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, AND IT BECOMES VOID
ABNITIO ESSENTIALLY, A, SAME
THING AS SETTING IT ASIDE,
AND, B, THAT IS WHAT JUDGE
LANGEHAM DID FOUND THIS NULL
AND VOID IN THE BEGINNING HE
MAY HAVE DONE IT FOR GROUNDS
THAT WERE INCORRECT, IN THE
SENSE THAT HE WAS APPLY --
APPLYING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
APPLYING, YOU KNOW, THE LAW
FROM 1996, BUT UNDER THE 50 --
DOCTRINE IF HE WAS RIGHT FOR
ANY REASON, HE IS RIGHT, AND
IT SHOULD STAND.
>> YOUR MOVING WELL INTO
REBUTTAL JUST WANTED TO ALERT
TO YOU THAT.
>> THANK YOU YOUR HONOR.
>> YOU CAN USE YOUR TIME YOU
SEE WISH I JUST WANTED TO
BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE, THAT I WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE ONE OTHER POINT,
AS FAR AS YOU KNOW,
INTERPRETING WHAT REQUIRE
MEANS SO FOR THE I NOTEED IN
MY INITIAL BRIEF WE HAVE
SUBSECTION D, 44011, 2011,
WHICH EXPRESSLY STATES IT
APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE
SUBSECTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SUBSECTION, TWO, B2 SAYS THE
JYC IS REQUIRED, TOLL CONSIDER
OF THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
CLAIMANT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CLAIMANT, AND HIS DEPENDENTS,
IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF
NOTES, THREE SETS OF STAFF
NOTES, MY APEN DISES TWO
THROUGH THREE ALL TALK ABOUT
DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING
ANYMORE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANYMORE, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN
WHEN REVIEWING, WHEN REVIEWING
MUST CONSIDER CLAIMANTS MEST
-- BEST INTEREST AS WELL AS
THOSE OF DEPENDENT YOU HAVE
BEENING CHILD BOARD NOVPT
THERE WAS ONE -- PORTION ADEN
-- APPENDIX SIX SAID WHEN
ROOISHD TO RV THE JCC MUST
CONSIDER THE BEST INTEREST
THAT VERSION OF SUBSECTION D,
DID NOT MAKE INTO IT THE FINAL
STATUTE SO SUBSECTION D, ALSO
DOES NOT SAY, ONLY IN
SITUATIONS OF A, AND B, WHERE
YOU HAVE -- CLAIMANTS REMITTED
BY COUNSEL, SO THAT STATUTE BY
LOGICAL READING SAYS, DOESN'T
SAY A JUDGE OF COMPENSATION
CLAIMS CANNOT APPROVE A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
CERTAINLY DOESN'T SAINT HE
CAN'T SET IT ASIDE, IN FACT,
IT MAKES A REQUIREMENT, THAT
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CLAIMANT THE CLAIMANT$$'S
DEPENDSENTS BE CONSIDERED, SO
WE WOULD 134I9 THAT YOU,
BASICALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BASICALLY, THE FIRST DCA WAS
WRONG, AND THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN
VERY INCONSISTENT OR SELECTIVE
IN THEIR -- THEIR APPLICATION
OF THIS EXPRESS AUTHORITY
PRINCIPLE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PRINCIPLE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE
ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE
LONGSTANDING HISTORY OF JCCS
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS
REACHED NO MORE IN 440 DID IT
EXPRESSLY SAY, THAT THE --
DETERMINE INTERPRET THE TERMS
OF AGREEMENT, OF AN AGREEMENT,
DOESN'T SAY DO THAT EITHER NOT
EXPRESS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
EXPRESSLY, GIVE EFFECT SUCH
AGREEMENT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN
DO THAT, THE OENL ENFORCEMENT
PROVISIONS REQUIRE, GOING INTO
THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR A RULE,
CIRCUIT COURTS ARE THE ONLY
ONES WITH THE POWER TO LEVY,
OR INCARCERATE OR WHATEVER IS
NECESSARY TO GET A JUDGMENT
ENFORCED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ENFORCED, AND, ALL SET ASIDE
MEDIATION AGREEMENT THE FIRST
DCA -- THAT WAS ATTACHED TO MY
REPLY BRIEF NO WRO NOWHERE IN
THE STATUE DOES IT SAY THEY
CAN DO THAT SO MAYBE, AS
JUSTICE SUGGESTED 4033 WHERE
IS THEY CAN DO IT.
THESE ARE ALL LOGICAL
FUNCTIONS OF A JUDGE, HANDLING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HANDLING, WORKERS COMPENSATION
CLAIM, AND PART OF A CLAIM OF
ANY WORKERS EXEMPTIONS CLAIM
ABSENT -- WORKERS COMPENSATION
CLAIM OBJECT SENT TRIAL AND
ORDER IS IN WHOEFR HEMMING
MAJORITY OF THE CASES A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. $$!!!!.
>> MOUNT MY NAME IS BARBARA
AINGE IREST THE RESPONDENT
HERE CITY OF ORLANDO.
>> WOULD YOU LIFT THAT
MICROPHONE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MICROPHONE.
>> AND, NOW, CAN YOU HEAR ME.
>> SEE IF WE DRESS THE FIRST
QUESTION, THAT I POSED, AND
SEEMS TO CREATE QUITE A
DILEMMA!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
DILEMMA, BECAUSE, DO YOU
AGREE, THAT THERE IS ONLY TWO
FEAST!!$$!!!!!!!!
FEAST, THAT HE POSSIBILITIES,
IFFING SO WRONG WITH
SETTLEMENT ARTICLE V FOR SOME
IN THE CLAIMS PROCESS, THE
ONLY TWOPLACE CAN BE ADDRESS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
ADDRESSED.
JURISDICTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JURISDICTIONLY.
>> YES CHIEF JUSTICE SNOOIS
AND IF WE HAVE THE
COMPENSATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMPENSATION, OF THAT SAYING
NO, WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION
WE'VE GOT CIRCUIT COURTS
SAYING WE DON'T HAVE
JURISDICTIONCH ANYTHING OVER
COMP YOU CAN'T EVEN RAISE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND
THE COMP PROCEEDINGS; CORRECT?
>> THERE IS NO DECISION THAT
I'M AWARE OF, YOUR HONOR
WHERE, THERE HAS BEEN AN
ATTEMPT TOP BRING AN ACTS ON
THESE PRIVATE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AGREEMENTS.
AFTER THE SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN
REACHED AND --
>> IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.
>> THE QUESTION IS
JURISDICTION TO DO IT NOT THAT
WHOA I'M TRYING TO GET OH, TO
ARE YOU SAYING IT HAS TO BE A
SPECIFIC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
AND THE CASES OUT OF ALL THE
ARTICLE A -- ARTICLE V COURTS
THAT SAY WE DO NOT FOUR JURIES
ON CORKERS COMPENSATION
MATTERS, THAT THOSE CASES
CANNOT BE APPLIED SIMPLY
BECAUSE THIS IS A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT?
IS THAT YOUR DISTINCT.
>> YES MY DISTINCTION IS THAT
ONCE THE SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN
REACHED UNDER 440.2011C THAT
IT IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF
THE WORKERS COMPENSATION ARENA!!$$!!!!!!!!
ARENA, IT IS A PRIVATE
AGREEMENT, BETWEEN PRIVATE
PARTIES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PARTIES.
>> SO WE HAVE ALSO DO WE NOT
ARTICLE V$$, SAYING WE HAVE NO
JURISDICTION OVER WORKERS
COMPENSATION MATTERS.
>> OVER WORKERS COMPENSATION
MATTERS CORRECT AND THIS IS NO
LONG!!$$!!!!!!
LONGER A WORKERS EXCELLINGS
MATTER.
>> THAT IS THE DISTINCTION
THAT YOU DRAW.
>> YES BY THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE
OF THE -- STATUTE.
>> ANY CASE THAT SAYS THAT?
>> THERE IS NO CASE -- THIS IS
NOT NO ONE HAS TRAVERSED THE
CIRCUIT COURT, IN THIS AREA.
THE SET OF FACTS IN THIS CASE,
IS QUITE UNIQUE, IN THAT THE
DECISION TO MOVE TO SET ASIDE
CAME SIX YEARS AFTER -- AFTER
THE SETTLEMENT, AND THE FIRST
APPROACH WAS TO WAS WITHIN THE
JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIM.
>> IT IS YOUR POSITION, THAT
-- AND THE POSITION THAT THE
DECISION RESTS ON IN THE FIRST
DISTRICT, THAT THE 2001
REVISION IN THE STATUTE
CHANGED WHAT WAS COMMON
PRACTICE; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES YOUR HONOR QUITE
SIGNIFICANTLY IT IS OUR
POSITION, THAT THE 2001
AMENDMENTS ABROGATED THE JUDGE
OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION OVER
SETTLEMENTS REACHED BY
REPRESENTED PARTIES.
PRIOR TO THAT, THE PARTIES
WERE REQUIRED TO PETITION THE
JUDGE EVERY COMPENSATION OF HE
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMS OF THE JUDGE
OF COMPENSATION --
COMPENSATION CLAIMS HE
EMPOWERED TO OTHER -- ENTER
ORDERS ON SETTLEMENTS.
>> YOU HAVE TO AGREE IT IS
SOME MOT ANOM LOUTS FOR A
ANOMALOUS FOR A 1996 AGREEMENT
THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION,
COULD APPROVE IT BUT THEN YOU
CAN'T GO BACK IN IN THE SAME
FORUM!!$$!!!!!!!!
FORUM, AND GET THE JUDGE TO
CORRECT WHAT WAS EARLIER DONE
BY THE JUDGE?
>> YES, THAT IS AN ANOMALY, IT
IS OUR POSITION THAT IT IS
WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION WAS DIVESTED,
THAT IS A PROCEDURAL AMENDMENT
TO THE STATUTE, AND A LOT OF
THE STAFF COMMENTARY TALKS
ABOUT THE PROCEDURAL NATURE OF
THIS AMENDMENT, THEREFORE, IT
APPLIES TO ANY DATE OF
ACCIDENT TO THIS JUDGE, JUDGE
OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS TODAY
WAS NOT EMPOWERED BY THE
STATUTE TO GO BACK, AND REVIEW
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND
SET IT ASIDE HE HAD NO SUCH
AUTHORITY.
UNDER THE CURRENT STATUE --
>> SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
IS A PROCEDURAL MATTER?
>> YES YOUR HOINOR.
>> -- YOUR HONOR.
>> THAT IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT
YOU CAN -- THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OR WHATEVER BODY
IT HAS JURISDICTION, YOU DON'T
BELIEVE THAT IS A SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHT OF THE CLAIMANTS OR THE
PEOPLE WHO APPEAR BEFORE
INSIGHT NO YOUR HONOR AND THAT
HAS BEEN RESPECTFULLY
ESTABLISHED UP TO UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT IN THE
LANDGRAB CASE I CITED IN MY
BRIEF THE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION DOESN'T PERTAIN
TO THE INDIVIDUAL CASE, IT
PERTAINS TO THE CLASSIC CASES,
AND IT IS CONSIDERED -- IN
LINE WITH THE PROCEDURAL
AMENDMENT, IT IS ALSO CITEED
IN A CASE, IN FLORIDA, DEALING
WITH FRAUD, PRIOR TO A
STATUTORY AMENDMENT THAT THE
JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS
DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER
FRAUDCH CLAIMS WITHIN
COMPENSATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMPENSATION.
>> SO THIS STATUTE, IS NOW
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT IS
NOW TAKING AWAY FROM A
DEFENDANT OR A CLAIMANT WHO
HAS THE HURT TO TO GO BEFORE
THE COURT AND HAS THE
AUTHORITY GO BEFORE THE COURT
THE COURT OF COMPENSATION, TO
HAVE THAT COURT APPROVE THIS
SETTLEMENT, IF INSPECT
1997 THEY HAD DISCOVER THERE
HAD WAS SOMETHING WRONG, HE
WOULD HAVE ALSO HAD A RIGHT TO
GO BEFORE THAT SAME BODY, AND
HAVE THAT BODY SET IT ASIDE.
BUT, NOW, HE NO LONGERS THAT
HAVE A RIGHT.
>> YES, UNDER THE CURRENT
STATUE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
STATUE,AND THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE FIRST DCA, WHICH WE
SUBMITTED IS EMINENTLY
CORRECT, THE AUTHORITY OF THE
JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIM
OVER SETTLEMENTS BY REPTDZ
PARTIES -- EITHER REPRESENTED
PARTIES GOES TO DETERMINING
WHETHER A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN
REACHED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
REACHED.
IF THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT
WELL, THERE REALLY WAS NO
MEETING OF THE MIND THERE
WHEREAS NO SETTLEMENT,
ARGUMENT OVER CONSTRUCTION OF
TEFRMZ!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
TEFRMZ -- TERMS THE JUDGE OF
COMPENSATION CLAIMS STILL HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINEP
WHETHER THAT THOSE TYPES OF
THINGS EXIST.
WHETHER FRAUD OCCURRED IN
MISREPRESENTATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MISREPRESENTATION, HOWEVER,
ONCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IS UNDISPUTABLY ENTERED, THE
JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS
HAS NO ABILITY TO ENTER ORDERS
SETTING ASIDE THAT SOEMENT --
>> HOW DID ATTORNEYS FEE
PORTION OF IT?
NOW UNDER THE STATUE OF YOU TO
-- YOU HAVE TO GET THE
COMPENSATION JUDGE, TO APPROVE
THE ATTORNEYS' FEES, SO -- DO
YOU NOW CAN YOU GO BEFORE THE
JUDGE AND IF THERE IS
SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT
ATTORNEYS FEE PROVISION.
>> YES, EXPRESSLY WITHIN THE
STATUTE IS THE PROVISION THAT
THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION
CLAIMS SHALL ENTER ORDERS
APPROVING ATTORNEYS' FEES.
SO THEY -- IF THE AND THE
COURT HAS TO AS PART OF THAT,
UNDER THE DOA RULES COUNSEL
SUBMITS TO THE COURT A MOTION
TIE PROVE ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR
PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES TACHING TO IT
AN AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT THAT NO
CHILD SUPPORT ARREAR AEGIS
HAVE OCCURRED, AND THE JUDGE
IN ESSENCE, RE-- REVIEW THAT'S
JUST AS THE JUDGE USED TO HAVE
THE POWER OF AUTHORITY TO
REVIEW THE ENTIRE SETTLEMENT,
HE STILL HAS THAT ORDER
AUTHORITY OVER -- OVER THE
ATTORNEY FEES.
>> I'M OF COURSE, GLOOIM GOING
TO SORT JAIF IN A NONJUDICIOUS
WAY, THING THAT THE
INTERPRETATION THE FIRST
DISTRICT HAS GIVEN TO THE
STATUE IS -- IS -- STATUTE IS
CRAZY, BECAUSE, THE VERY FACT,
LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT FIRST
OF ALL THERE WAS NEVER ANY
EXPRESS AUTHORITY SET ASIDE,
SEMENT AGREEMENTS, BUT THE
ONLY THING THAT THIS PROVISION
DOES, LIKE WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT I DON'T KNOW YOU WERE
HERE FOR FIRST RULES CASE
SOMETHING GOING TO BE
REQUIRED, IT IS REQUIRES
APPROVAL ONLY AS TO TOERNS
FEES -- ATTORNEYS' FEES, I
WOULD THINK IF TWO IF LAWYERS
FOR BOTH SIDES THOUGHT YOU
KNOW WE JUST THINK WE'VE GOT A
CLIENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
CLIENT, THAT IS A LITTLE
ERRATIC, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE THE APPROVAL, I DON'T SEE
WHERE THE JUDGE'S COMPENSATION
CLAIMS WOULD BE DIVESTED, OF
EVEN THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE
A SETTLEMENT POST 2001?
IT ONLY SAYS, THAT IT IS
REQUIRES APPROVAL DOESN'T SAY
THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TIE APPROVE SETTLEMENTS WHERE
BOTH SIDES ARE REPRESENTATIVE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REPRESENTATIVED.
THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT
I'M MISSING AS FAR AS HOW THIS
STATUTE READS.
>> WELL, THE STATUTE -- NO,
AND I AGREE WITH YOU, THAT THE
LANGUAGE IS NOT THE MOST
READILY INTERPOPERABLE, AS THE
LANGUAGE COULD BE IT CHANGED
SIGNIFICANT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SIGNIFICANTLY, FROM THE
LANGUAGE, IN THE EARLIER
STATUE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
STATUE.
>> -- STATUTE.
>> AGAIN WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS
IT WAS A PRACTICAL THING I
WOULD ASSUME BOTH THE CARRIES,
AND CLAIMANTS ATTORNEYS SAID
YOU KNOW WHAT, WE ARE HAVING
TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF EXTRA
STEPS!!$$!!!!!!!!
STEPS, MOST CASES IT IS NOT
NECESSARY.
SO WE'RE -- WE ARE NOT GOING
REQUIRE APPROVAL, A -- END OF
STORY DOES IT SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT NOT HAVING AUTHORITY TO
SET ASIDE FRAUDULENT
AGREEMENTS DOES IT SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT
IF ONE OR THE OTHER PARTY
THINK AS THE IDEA THAT THE
JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS
CAN'T HAVE IT AND CERTAINLY,
AS TO SOMETHING THAT WAS
ENTERED BEFORE THE STATUTE WAS
IN EFFECT, HOW WOULD IT DIVEST
THEM OF JURISDICTION TO -- TO
DISAPPROVE SOMETHING THEY
APPROVED?
I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME
WITH THIS.
>> AND I UNDERSTAND THAT,
ZWRIS PAR EPT AYE -- PARIENTE,
HOWEVER!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOWEVER, WHEN DOAH PROMULGATED
RULES PERTAINING TO THIS
STATUTE IT WAS CLEAR BY -- BY
THE WAY THE RULES WERE LAID
OUT, THAT IT WAS TOTALLY
DIFFERENT, AS TO THE
ATTORNEYS' FEES PORTION AND AS
TO THEP -- PORTION OF THE
SETTLEMENT THERE WERE NO
PROVISION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PROVISIONS FOR EVEN PRESENTING
THE SETTLEMENT TO THE JUDGE OF
COMPENSATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMPENSATION.
>> --
>> PROMULGATED BY AN MFB
AGENCY -- HAVING
ADMINISTRATIVING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ADMINISTRATIVING, STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION, IF YOU ARE
SAYING, THAT THEY THAT THEY
INTERPRETED NOT TO ALLOW TWO
REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES GO IN
FRONT OF THEM I STILL DON'T
SEE WHERE THAT WOULD AGAIN
DIVEST THEM OF HAVING THE
AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE
FRAUDULENT AGREEMENTS, SUCH AS
THIS ONE IS REPRESENTED TO
HAVE BEEN.
>> RESPECTFULLY, A FRAUDULENT
AGREEMENT IS VOID -- VOID AB
INITIALIO THERE IS NO
SETTLEMENT SO IT IS NOT THAT
THEY ARE APPROVING OR SETTING
ASIDE A SETTLEMENT THE
SETTLEMENT WOULD BE VOID, IN
THIS CASE, THERE WAS
ABSOLUTELY ALTHOUGH THERE WERE
ALLEGATIONS AND THAT IS KIND
OF WHAT THIS CASE WAS BASED
UPON, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING,
ALLEGATIONS THAT SOME -- TYPE
OF WRONGDOING OR MISREPRESENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MISREPRESENTATION OR FRAUD ON
THE PART OF THE CITY, THERE IS
NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD OF THAT THERE
WERE NO FINDINGS --
>> NOW YOU ARE REALLY GETTING
INTO THE YOU KNOW I'VE GOT A
CONCERN THAT REALLY IN
ADDITION TO, BUT BEYOND THOSE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE HERE, LET'S
CONSIDER THE BROADER POLICY
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RULING,
AND THAT IS THAT IF ANYTHING,
THE POLICY HAPPENS
CONSISTENTLY BEEN AND IS
FIRMING UP THAT EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IS IN THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION JUDGES -- IF IF
ASSUMING WE HAVE JURISDICTION,
AND WE SHOULD APPROVE THE
HOLDING LIKE THIS, THIS BLOWS
ABOUT THE BIGGEST HOLE IN THIS
SCHEME OF KEEPING WORKERS COMP
SEPARATE KEEPING JURISDICTION
OVER IN THE JCC$$'S, KEEPING OUT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, EXCEPT
FOR THESE EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES OF MAYBE
ENFORCING PROCESS, OR YOU KNOW
THE LIMITED CASES, VERY, VERY
LITTLED -- LIMITED CASES THIS
JUST BLOWS A HUGE HOLE IN THE
POLICY THAT SAYS CIRCUIT
COURTS ARTICLE V COURTS STAY
OUT OF THIS, OTHER THAN IN THE
REVIEW PROCESS.
THIS -- WE WANT THIS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER HERE, IN THE
JCC!!$$!!!!
JCC'S SO NOW WE WOULD HAVE THE
SPECTER OF EACH TIME THERE IS
A DISPUTE ABOUT UPON OF THESE
AGREEMENTS OR WHATEVER, WELL
LET'S GO FILE A LAWSUIT.
AND THAT IS NOW WE ARE GOING
TO JUST AS I SAY, AND SO I'M
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
POLICY COMPLIMGSS --
IMPLICATIONS OF APPROVING A
HOLDING LIKE THIS, THAT AS I
SAY TO THE IT APPEARS TO ME,
TO JUST BLOW UP THE YOU KNOW
THE WHOLE POLICY CONCEPT THAT
THE SURE HAS SET OUT --
LEGISLATURE SET OUT IN KEEPING
THIS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONFINES BEFORE THE JCC, HELP
ME WITH WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE
WE GOING NOW?
WE REPRESENT THE ARTICLE V
COURTS, OBVIOUSLY, AND I DON'T
THINK WE'VE BEEN DISSAEED AS A
MATTER OF FACT -- DISSATISFIED
IT IS NOT THAT LONG AGO THAT
WE RULED WE DON'T HAVE
JURISDICTION TIE PROVE THE
RULES OF THE -- BECAUSE IT --
IT IS SO EXCLUSIVE, NOW YOU
ARE SAYING, NO, NOW -- AFTER
THESE SETTLEMENTS, DON'T HAVE
TO BE APPROVED ANYMORE --
ARTICLE V COURTS HERE WE COME.
NOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
WHOLE NEW AREA OF THE LAW, TO
LITIGATE.
SO HELP ME WITH WHY THIS
RULING WOULDN'T BE TOTALLY
CONTRARY TO EVERY BIT OF
POLICY THAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS EVER SET OUT ABOUT KEEPING
THIS WITHIN THE CONFINES.
>> THE ANALYTICAL DISTINCTION
THAT I SEE ON THE CASES AS
THEY NOW STAND AND THOSE
COMPENSATIONS THAT YOU ARE
DISCUSSING -- COMPOSITIONS
THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING IS
ONCE I THINK THIS IS THE WAY
THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL WAS LOOKING AT IT ALSO
IT COMES FROM A LONG PROCESS,
OF ANALYZING YOU KNOW, WHAT
DOES OCCUR, WHAT IS -- THE
HISTORY, AND YES COMPENSATION,
IS LIMITED TO THE JUDGE OF
COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
ONCE THEP REPRESENTED PARTY
AVEILS HIMSELF OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO -- TAKE PART IN
THIS 440.2011C SETTLEMENT
PROCESS THE CLAIMANT IS
WAIVING ALL BENEFITS PROVIDED
BY THE CHAPTER THE CLAIMANT IS
REMOVING HIMSELF FROM THE
PURVIEW OF WORKERS
COMPENSATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMPENSATION, IN RETURN FOR A
LUMP SUM SETTLEMENT, THESE
CASES, THEN BECOME
ANALYTICALLY LIKE ANY OTHER
CASE, INVOLVING A PRIVATE
CONTRACT, WHICH COGNOSCIBLE IN
ARTICLE FIVE COURT.
>> YES, THEY GO TO THE ARTICLE
V COURT.
>> YES, I THINK THEY BECOME --
>> IN ALL OF THESE NOW
23450SHGS THEY BECOME.
>> HE WOULD BE OPEN, TO
PROCEEDINGS IN THE ARTICLE V
COURTS.
AND WHERE IN THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION STATUTORY SCHEME
IS THERE ONE I OTA OF
SUGGESTION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE WANTED ARTICLE V
COURTS TO DELVE INTO THESE
AREAS?
SHOW ME ONE PLACE, IN DELIVERS
SCHEME OR THE HISTORY OF IT OR
ANYPLACE WHERE THAT ISN'T
TOTAL CONTRARY TO WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ENDED TO --
INTENDED TO KEEP THESE THINGS
IN THE CONFINES OF THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION STRUCTURAL
SETTING.
>> I THINK, THAT THIS CAME
FROM THE LEGISLATURE$$'S
PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT THE JCC
WAS NO LONGER EMPOWERED TO
ENTER ORDERS APPROVING THESE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IT
REMOVED -- THE CLAIMANT CAN
TAKE HIMSELF OUT OF THE
WORKERS COMPENSATION --
>> ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT
THAT BEFORE THE AMENDMENT TO
THE STATUTE DO YOU AGREE THAT
JUDGE HAD THE COMPENSATION
JUDGE HAD THE JURISDICTION TO
SET ASIDE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AGREEMENTS?
>> BEFORE THE AMENDMENT, THE
COMPENSATION JUDGE DID HAVE AN
AUTHORITY THAT WAS FOUND
IMPLIED WITHIN THE DUTIES OF
THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION
CLAIMS TO INVESTIGATE
DETERMINE BEST INTERESTS.
>> AND DO YOU AGREE THAT
BEFORE THE 2001 AMENDMENT THE
STATUTE DID NOT MENTION
SETTING ASIDE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AGREEMENTS?
THE STATUTE DID NOT MENTION IT
WILL, EXCEPT IN -- YEAH STATUE
DID NOT MENTION IT -- HE --
LONG LINE OF CASES WHERE THEY
PULLED IT FROM -- THE --
BASICALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BASICALLY.
>> SO THAT AUTHORITY, THAT
JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS
HAD TO SET ASIDE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MUST HAVE
COME FROM A DIFFERENT PART OF
THE STATUTE THAN THE STATUTE
THAT WAS AMENDED?
WHY DIDN'T IT COME FROM
440---.33 WHICH ALLOWS A JUDGE
OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS TO DO
ALL THINGS, CONFORMBLE TO LAW
WHICH MAY BENESS TO ENABLE THE
JUDGE EFFECTIVELY TO DISCHARGE
THE DUTIES OF HIS OR HER
OFFICE?
WHY IT COME FROM THERE?
>> IF YOU READ THE LINE OF
CASES!!$$!!!!!!!!
CASES, AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE,
YOU KNOW LOOKED AT SOME -- AS
EXPLAINED IN THE ORDER BELOW,
THE POWER AND AUTHORITY WAS TO
CONSIDER TO COME ACTUALLY FROM
440 SUBSECTION 440.2011
ITSELF.
IN THAT THE COURT HAD THE DUTY
TO INVESTIGATE, DETERMINE BEST
INTERESTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INTERESTS.
IF THE COURT HAD BEEN NOT --
NOT PROVIDED WITH THE CORRECT
OR THE NECESSARY MATERIALS TO
FULFILL THAT DUTY, HE, THEN,
BECAUSE HE HAD NOT FULFILLED
HIS DUTY HAD THE DUTY TO LOOK
AT THE NEW INFORMATION, AND
FULFILL THAT STATUTORY DUTY,
AND THIS THIS IS THE -- THE
DISCUSSION IN THE CASES ABOUT
WRIRT COMES FROM.
>> THE SLAUR HAD INTENDED TO
OVERRULE THOSE CASES DON'T YOU
WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN MORE
EXPLICIT IN AMENDING THE
STATUTE THAN JUST SAYING, IT
IS NOT REQUIRED, WOULDN'T HAVE
IT SAID, THAT A JUDGE OF
COMPENSATION CLAIMS HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?
.
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> WOULDN'T HAVE IT SAID THE
JURISDICTION OF -- JUDGE OF
COMPENSATION CLAIMS, ENDS WHEN
THE JUDGMENT IS RENDER OR WE A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS
ENTERED?
>> -- I DON'T WANT TO CAST
APPEARION ON THE LEGISLATURE,
ANYTHING BUT THIS -- THIS IN
SEMMATTERKA IN CHAPTER 440 IS
CONTINUALLY EVOLVING AND MANY
TIMES -- THE STATUS THAT COME
INTO PLAY NEW AE -- REVISIONS
ARE, NOT AS EXPLICIT AS WE
WERE WERE LIKE THEM TO BE IN
INTERPRETING THEM THIS WHAT
THE FIRST DCA GRAPPLES WITH,
IN A LOT OF INSTANCES, A LOT
OF -- CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> THE COURTS AROUND THE STATE
WOULD LOVE, TO STAY IF THE
FIRST DISTRICT, BUT YOU SAY,
JUSTIFIED ANSTEAD$$'S QUESTION,
YOU SAID THAT THE LEGISLATURE
SAID THERE ARE NO LONGER
EMPOWERED YOU SEE THAT IS
WHERE I THINK THE PROBLEM IS,
BECAUSE THE ONLY THING IT SAYS
IS THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO
IT.
AND IF THEY SAY THERE ARE --
THEY ARE NOT EMPOURED TO
APPROVE ANYTHING THEN I THINK
YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT
SITUATION.
BUT IS THAT YOU AGREED THAT IS
-- THAT EMPOWER MEANT IS NOT
THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED IN
THIS AMENDMENT.
>> YES, I AGREE I AGREE IT IS
NOT EXPRESSLY WITHIN THE
AMENDMENT --
>> SAYING SOMETHING ISN'T
REQUIRED ONLY MEANS IT IS NOT
NECESSARY.
>> AND ACTUALLY, IT SAYS, THE
CLAIMANTS THE PARTIES NEED NOT
SUBMIT ANY INFORMATION OR
DOCUMENTATION WHAT DOES "NEED
NOT" MEAN I ACTUALLY LOOKED IT
UP IN THE DICTIONARY, YOU
KNOW!!$$!!!!!!
KNOW, THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF
DEFINITIONS SHOULD NOT, NEED
NOT MEANS SHOULD NOT IS IT I
MANDATORY IS IT PERMISSIVE?
IT -- THAT THE USE OF A LOT OF
THE TERMS WITHIN THIS STATUTE
HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED, BECAUSE
IT IS NOT LIKE YOU -- VERY --
CORRECTLY POINT OUTP.
>>.
>> IF THE JUDGE OF
COMPENSATION CLAIM DOES IN
FACT APPROVE ONE OF THESE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, THAT
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HE AT
SOME POINT SET IT ASIDE IF THE
PARTIES COME BEFORE THEM AND
ASK FOR THAT KIND OF RELIEF DO
YOU AGREE THAT IF THEY HAVE
THE RIGHT TO APPROVE IT, THEN
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SET IT
ASIDE?
>> I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT HAS
BEEN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
LAW FOR QUITE SOMETIME.
>> SO I MEAN SEEMS TO ME WE
ARE INVITING THE PARTIES EVEN
THOUGH THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE
A JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIM
APPROVE IT, IF THEY ARE ALL
REMITTED BY ATTORNEYS, BUT IF
THEY DO, AND SAY JUDGE WE WANT
YOU TO APPROVE THIS, THEN THEY
ARE PRESERVING THEIR RIGHT
WHERE AS IF THEY DON'T GET THE
JUDGE TIE PROVE IT, THEY
LONGER HAVE THAT RIGHT, THAT
IS JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO
BE REALLY GOOD POLICY.
OR -- DO YOU THINK THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD WANT THAT
KIND OF RESULT?
>> WELL, I -- AND I GO BACK TO
MY TO OUR ANALYSIS OF THISCH
-- THIS DECISION, AND THIS
STATUTE, I THINK WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAD IN MIND WAS
THAT ONCE THE PARTIES OF
SETTLED A CASE, THEY WERE
REPRESENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REPRESENTED, IT WAS OF A
PRIVATE AGREEMENT, THEY WERE
REMOVING THEMSELVES FROM --
>> HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH
SUBSECTION E?
I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER HELP
ME SUBSECTION E SIX SESSION 11
SAYS IT TOES NOT APPLY TO
CASES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
SETTLED --
>> PARDON ME WHICH SUBSECTION
LAST SUBSECTION OF 11 HOW DOES
IT APPLY -- I'M SORRY.
>> YES, YOU ARE, YES,
SUBSECTION E SAYS THIS SECTION
APPLIES TO ALL CLAIMS THAT THE
PARTIES HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY
SETTLED REGARDLESS OF THE DATE
OF ACCIDENT.
>> AND IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT
ONLY BEEN SETTLED, BUT
EFPREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER
THE PRIOR SCHEME BY THE JCC;
CORRECT?
>> YES, YES.
>> WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT
SUBSECTION HAVE TO THIS --
>> I THINK WHAT SUBSECTION
E IS REFERRING TO, IS THE
RETROACTIVE NATURE OF THE
STATUTE, SAYING YOU KNOW IF --
IF DOESN'T MATTER TYPICALLY
THE DATE OF ACCIDENT APPLIES,
IN WORKERS COMPENSATION, AND
THIS PROVISION IS PROVIDING
THAT NO MATTER YOUR DATE OF
ACCIDENT, IF YOU SETTLE IF YOU
SETTLE A CLAIM YOU WILL
PROCEED UNDER THIS STATUTE.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, YOU
HAVE HE USED UP ALL YOUR TIME
MAKE SURE UNDERIT IS POSITION
IN THIS CASE OF THE CITY THIS
CASE STANDS THAT IS THESE
DISPUTES ALL BELONG IN ARTICLE
V COURT; CORRECT?
>> CORRECT, ON THE CONTRACT.
AND IF I MAY, I.
>> YOU HAVE FINISHED YOUR
TIME, YOU ARE WAY OVER,
EXHAUSTED ALL YOUR TIME THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YOU HAVE JUST A COUPLE
MINUTES USED UP MOST OF YOUR
TIME AS WELL SIR BUT --
>> YES YOUR HONOR THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, I WOULD LIKE TO
STATE FIRST, THAT JUSTICE
ANSTEAD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANSTEAD'S QUESTIONS REGARDING
-- BLOWING A HOLE AND SO FORTH
I THINK SUPPORTS OUR POSITION
ON JURISDICTION, FOLLOW UP
WITH JUSTICE CANTERO.
>> ONE CAN BLOW A HOLE IN A
WHOLE STATUTORY SCHEME WITHOUT
CONFLICTING WITH ANY OTHER DCA!!$$!!!!
DCA; RIGHT?
.
>> WOULD BE CON234R50IKING
WITH THE OTHER DCA$$'S THAT ARE
MENTIONED IN THEY JURISDICTION
BREACH AS FAR AS.
>> -- BLOW A WHOLE IN THE
STATUTORY SCHEME WITHOUT
CONFLICTING WITH ANOTHER DCA
IF IT IS FIRST TIME ANY COURT
HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE, I
WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH ANY
OTHERIZATION WE WOULDN'T HAVE
JURISDICTION NO MATTER HOW BIG
THAT WHOLE WAS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, AND WE ARE
POSITION OF COURSE THAT
BECAUSE THE OTHER DCA'S
REFUSED TO HEAR SOME CASES
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE
JURISDICTION, AND FIRST DCA
SAYING NOT JCC$$'S DON'T --
ABYSS THAT THE POINT.
>> WE DON'T TAKE JURISDICTION
THE WAY THIS GOING TO HAVE TO
COME UP IS SOMEONE IS GOING
MOVE TO SET ASIDE IN A COURT,
IN A --
>> I AGREE YOUR HONOR, I AGREE
YOUR HONOR, AND FOLLOWING UP
ON JUSTICE CANTERO$$'S LINE OF
QUESTIONING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QUESTIONING, EARLIER, TO
OPPOSING COUNSEL, KEEPING IN
MIND, THAT THIS 2001
AMENDMENT, WAS INTERPRETED
LATER IT ON WAS 2005, OR 4, IB
BELIEVE NAB MONTH SHANINGOE
CAME OUT, NOW PRIOR TO THAT AS
WE DISCUSSED TODAY, JCC$$'S LONG
HAD THIS HER OUT TO SET
AGREEMENTS ASIDE.
THE LEGISLATURE, AMENDED THE
STATUTE SEVERAL TIMES, AFTER
THAT, AND NEVER SAID "NO, NO
MORE" SO THEREFORE THEY
BASICALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BASICALLY, KNOWING THAT,
APPROVED THAT PROCESS, THEY
HAVEN'T AMENDMENT THEY HAD
STATUTE SINCE, THESE DECISION,
OKAY?
AND SO THEREFORE, YOU KNOW THE
LEGISLATURE PRESUMED PRESUMED
JCC!!$$!!!!
JCC'S XERG AUTHORITY THEY
NEVER -- EXERCISE$$!!!!ING AUTHORITY
THEY NEVER EXPRESSLY DID
"THEREFORE HAVE THEMSELVES
BACK TIE PROVE THAT
JURISDICTION, FROM THE PAST,
AND THEY ARE STILL DOING SO
NOW.
THEY HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY,
TO EXPLICITLY SAY NO YOU CAN'T
DO THIS ANY MORE.
>> WITH OUR TIME WITH
ADDITIONAL TIME YOU HAVE ALSO
USED UP YOUR EXTRA TIME.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOUR
HONOR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH WE WILL
TAKE THE CASE UNDER ADVISE
MEANT THANK SNOOUSHGS