Case Law Update June 2025
| Fox v. Sarasota County School Board, ___So.3d___(Fla. 1st DCA 6/25/25 E/C-Paid Attorney Fees & Costs/JCC Jurisdiction The parties settled the underlying claims for $114,900 and submitted a Motion for fees on the washout of $12,240, which the JCC approved. Later that day the parties submitted a stipulation on past fees ($60,308.72) and costs ($24,691.28). The JCC denied the stipulation. The DCA vacated the denial and analyzed JCC jurisdiction over employer paid fees. F.S. s. 440.34(1) states that attorney fees may not be paid in connection with any proceedings arising under this chapter, unless approved by a JCC or court having jurisdiction over such proceedings. However, they noted that if a stipulation exists without evidence of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation or some other basis that would void the agreement, the JCC is obligated to follow the stipulation. The opinion provided specific clarification, stating: “To reconcile this tension, we now explain: a JCC’s review of a side stipulation for E/C paid fees extends only to the fee amount. It follows then that the JCC erred here when he denied E/C-paid fee entitlement. Although the JCC found “no factual or legal basis for concluding that [Claimant’s attorney] is entitled to payment of attorney’s fees and taxable costs by the employer/carrier under the facts presented here,” that finding is insufficient under prior case law, which expressly requires “some basis beyond a finding that Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to establish a stipulated fact.” (internal citations omitted). They further noted in contrast to fees, JCCs have no jurisdiction at all over E/C-paid claimant’s costs. Click here to read Opinion Steak N’ Shake, Inc., v. Spears, ___So.3d ___ (Fla. 5th DCA 6/13/25) WC Statutory Immunity/Exclusive Remedy/Mental Claims The 5th DCA remanded the trial judge’s Order, which found that the Plaintiff was not entitled to WC benefits and thus able to sue her employer directly in tort. During the Plaintiff’s shift as a server, and armed gunman forced the claimant into a back room, threatened to kill her and grabbed her by the shoulder and neck. The claimant did not pursue WC benefits, and instead sued the employer in circuit court. The employer argued they were entitled to immunity because the Plaintiff had not requested benefits and thus had not initiated the process of determining whether her injuries were compensable. The trial judge agreed with the Plaintiff, as she had suffered no physical injury and sought only mental distress damages for herself. The trial judge based this finding on the language F.S. s 440.093(1), which deems that mental or nervous injuries only do not arise out of employment without an accompanying physical injury requiring medical treatment. The DCA held that an employee may not file a tort claim against her employer without first seeking a determination of whether she is entitled to WC benefits. They noted that F.S.s. 440.13(1)(d) defines “compensable” to be a determination only a carrier or JCC can make. Thus, a circuit judge lacks such authority. The claimant cannot unilaterally determine their claim is NOT compensable, and proceed directly to circuit court. The DCA noted that whether or not she sustained a physical injury requiring treatment is a factual matter to be reviewed by the carrier and the JCC. They also noted due process concerns for carriers where the claimant does not first seek benefits. The remand required a determination of whether or not any claim for benefits had been filed with the carrier in the interim, or if not, the carrier (employer?) is entitled to an Order dismissing the tort claim. Click here to read opinion |