Thursday, April 28, 2016

Court calls $1.53 an hour lawyer fee unconstitutional, 'absurd' - Comments from Michael Winer

In its ruling, the court said the fee limits are unconstitutional because they resulted in a system where people can't find lawyers to represent them at unreasonably low rates. The law based lawyer fees on a percentage of the amount of money won in a claim, so if an injured worker had a $5,000 claim, lawyers knew that they could receive no more than $1,000.

So while the $5,000 could be important to someone earning $10 an hour and trying to pay bills, lawyers don't want to take cases where their fee is driving down to the equivalent of $10 an hour or less, said Michael Winer, who chairs the Workers Compensation Section of The Florida Bar.

"People who were injured on the job and stuck in the workers' comp system lost the ability to pay lawyers," he said. "I have had very difficult discussions with a lot of injured workers who had valid claims, and said, `Look, the juice here, unfortunately, just isn't worth the squeeze. I might have to spend 50 to 70 hours on your case."'

It also led to insurance companies denying legitimate claims knowing that injured workers wouldn't be able to fight the decision, Winer said.

The Florida Supreme Court struck down a law limiting lawyer fees in workers' compensation cases on Thursday, saying the $1.53 hourly rate a lawyer was paid to help an injured worker was "absurdly low."

The 5-2 decision is expected to help injured workers who have struggled to get lawyers to help them because the fee system created by then-Gov. Jeb Bush in 2003 makes their cases not worth representing. The case involved a man who successfully sued a Miami door manufacturer over an on-the-job injury. His lawyer was paid $164.54 for more than 100 hours of work.

But the ruling is a blow to business groups that have long argued legal fees drive up the costs of workers-compensation insurance. The fee issue will bounce back to the Legislature, where it could spark a fierce debate.

"They deny the claim, and if the claimant can't get a lawyer, he goes away and he makes it somebody else's problem. That problem might be Medicaid's problem, that problem might be a county hospital that never gets reimbursed," Winer said. "It's the grand passing of the buck."

Justice Barbara Pariente, writing for the court's majority, said the 2009 law is a violation of due-process rights under the Florida Constitution and the U.S. Constitution because it prevents challenges to the "reasonableness" of attorney's fees awarded in workers-compensation cases. "This case, and many others like it, demonstrate that despite the stated goal, oftentimes the worker experiences delay and resistance either by the employer or the [insurance] carrier,'' wrote Pariente. "Without the likelihood of an adequate attorney's fee award, there is little disincentive for a carrier to deny benefits or to raise multiple defenses, as was done here." Read the full article, click here.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Court rejects legal restriction in workers' comp cases

Today was one of proudest moments as a lawyer. After years of fighting to overturn one of the most unfair laws on the books, we finally succeeded.

Today, in Martha Miles v. City of Edgewater, the 1st District Court of Appeal declared that section 440.34 is unconstitutional. This monumental decision paves the way for so many Floridians who are injured on the job, like Mrs. Miles, an injured police officer, to be able to secure legal representation to assist them in their Worker's Compensation claims.

The court held that, "We conclude that the statutory restrictions are unconstitutional, and that the proper remedy is to allow an injured worker and an attorney to enter into a fee agreement approved by the JCC, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions." A great day for fairness and justice. Thanks to our team: Geoff Bichler, Paolo Longo, the Fraternal Order of Police, Florida Workers Advocates, and so many others.

Read Artcle: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/careers/fl-nsf-workers-comp-restrictions-20160420-story.html