Case Law Update August 2025
| Updated 9/5/25 Siena v. Orange County Fire/Rescue/CCMSI, (Fla. 1st DCA 8/20/25) Powers of JCC/Attorney Disqualification The DCA affirmed the JCC’s Order disqualifying the Bichler Longo firm from representing the claimant. The underlying issue resulted from the Bichler firm hiring an attorney who previously worked on the claimant’s case for the defense firm. The defense firm moved to disqualify the claimant’s firm although there was no pending PFB following the appeal of the JCC’s original Order denying the claimant widow death benefits. The DCA found the JCC had jurisdiction to disqualify the firm and properly exercised his discretion in so doing. JCC Tannebaum issued a lengthy decision analyzing and discussing those issues. Click here to view Opinion Mejia Palacios v. AHCA (Fla. 1st DCA 8/20/25) Medicaid Liens/Determination of Amount The DCA reversed and remanded the ALJ’s determination of the percentage amount of an injured worker’s settlement that should go toward reimbursing Medicaid. Medicaid paid $35,031.49 following claimant’s workplace fall. In discovery in the underlying case, it was shown claimant had fall protection gear available, but that he conceded he declined to use it and it would have prevented his fall. The case settled for $238,500.00. There was no stipulation as to how much of that settlement was for medical care. F.S. s. 409.910(11)(f) provides a formula for Medicaid lien recovery which is, after attorney fees and taxable cost, “one half the remaining recovery up to the total amount of medical assistance provided by Medicaid.” AHCA sought the full amount of the lien based on that formula, and Palacios filed a DOAH petition, attended a hearing and presented two expert witnesses (regarding “Full Value,” in relation to his argument that the amount to be recovered was only for medical care) and entered documentary evidence. AHCA presented only the summary of expenses. The ALJ considered that evidence and “proportionality methodology” in determining that the amount the claimant should pay should be impacted by his comparative negligence (and thus not reduced). The DCA found there was no reasonable basis to reject Palacio’s uncontroverted evidence in support of the lower lien. Click here to view Opinion Rebalko v. Gillis/Head Industries/Amerisure, __ So.3d ___(Fla 1st DCA 8/6/25) Non-Final Orders In a case argued before the First District Court of Appeal on July 22, 2025, Bill Rogner convinced the First District that the order appealed was non-final and therefore not appealable. The order, which designated a proper payee for a mentally incompetent injured worker, was appealed by the claimant’s discharged attorney who wanted his name to continue to appear on the claimant’s PTD checks. Since the underlying fee dispute was not resolved, the First District held that the order was not a “final appealable order.” Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal. The lesson here is that many orders are entered by JCCs that do not fully dispose of all issues ripe for adjudication. Except in very limited situations, such orders may not be appealed. The First DCA lacks jurisdiction to review most non-final orders. As an appellate specialist, Mr. Rogner is available to consult in connection with any adverse order regarding its appealability. Click here to view Opinion |