Workers' compensation fix eludes lawmakers.

In debates over workers' compensation during the legislative session, lawmakers frequently referred to the system as a "grand bargain" that enables injured workers to get treated with minimal fuss and businesses to have reasonable insurance rates.

But the House and Senate could not find their own grand bargain to address two Supreme Court decisions and one First District Court of Appeal opinion that found parts of the state's workers' comp. law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decisions were cited as part of the cause of a 14.5 percent increase in workers' comp. rates this year.

The legislative maneuvering was monitored by the Bar's Workers' Compensation Section, which did not directly take a position on the proposed bills but did promote its legislative positions of having access to courts, due process, and the ability of all parties to have representation in the process. The section also opposed any legislation restricting attorneys' fees paid either to lawyers representing employers/carriers or injured workers.

"There was a lot of posturing from the various interest groups, so if something wasn't satisfactory [to them] ... they would do something to make sure that nothing occurs, which is what happened," said section Chair Alan Kalinoski.

"What was somewhat predictable is there would be a flurry of an effort during the last days of the session ... to try to play politics --to strip down certain bills or tacking amendments to it to try to slide something by. Or to try to strip the bill down to the point it would not pass," he added.

One of the Supreme Court rulings at issue held unconstitutional the limit of 104 weeks of benefits for a totally disabled worker who was eventually expected to recover. The court ordered a return to the previous standard of 260 weeks. The second issue struck down the fixed, no-exceptions fee schedule that resulted in low attorneys' fees in cases in which the employer/carriers wage a protracted battle over a relatively minor claim or award. In the case decided by the court, the judge of compensation claims found the claimant attorney legitimately had to spend 107.2 hours on the case because of multiple defense claims, but the resulting fee under the schedule was about $1.53 an hour. The court said there had to be a reasonable exception in such cases.

The First DCA ruling invalidated a section of the law that said it was a felony for anyone but the employer/carrier to pay the fees for a claimant's lawyer...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT