This case concerned the constitutionality of the statutory formula for calculating the attorney’s fee award for a prevailing claimant in a workers’ compensation case. The First District Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s arguments that the statutory formula runs afoul of the constitutional principles of equal protection, due process, and access to the courts. On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Justice Reform Institute filed an amicus curiae brief in which it argued that the attorney fee formula does not violate the constitution and instead promotes the objective of providing an efficient system of delivering benefits to injured workers that can be maintained at a reasonable cost to employers.
However, the Florida Supreme Court disagreed, and held that the statutory formula violated due process because it created an “irrebuttable presumption” that precludes any consideration of whether the fee award is “reasonable.” In dissent, Justice Canady said that the majority had ignored that the statutory formula embodies a legislative policy determination that there should be a reasonable relationship between the value of the benefits obtained in litigating a workers’ compensation claim and the amount of attorney’s fees the employer/carrier is required to pay to the claimant.
FJRI represented by Mark K. Delegal and Matthew H. Mears of Holland & Knight LLP, and William W. Large.