Aggressive claimant attorneys have launched constitutional attacks on workers’ compensation reforms in a number of states including California and Florida. The California Court of Appeal has scheduled oral argument in the the case of Frances Stevens v WCAB that challenges the IMR process. Stevens is now set for oral argument on September 30. Another similar constitutional challenge is working its way through the Third District Court of Appeal that recently agreed to hear the case of Ramirez v The State of California Department of Health Care Services.
In Florida, two high-profile workers’ compensation cases still sit on the desk of the Florida Supreme Court – (1) Castellanos v. Next Door Company and (2) Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg – both of which could have a negative impact on the Florida workers’ compensation system. The workers’ compensation system in Florida has continuously come under scrutiny from opponents looking to overhaul the reforms that were put in place in 2003 by Gov. Jeb Bush and the Legislature.
In the Castellanos case the Florida Supreme Court will decide if the 2003 and 2009 Amendments to the Florida attorney fee law are unconstitutional. In 2003, the Legislature amended the law and limited the amount of attorney’s fees. This severely limited the types of cases or claims an attorney could file. The Court will now decide if the law prevents certain cases or claimants the access to courts as allowed under the Constitution. The National Employment Lawyers Association has given its support to a suit asking the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a statutory limitation on prevailing-party attorneys’ fees in workers’ compensation cases, which the group argues violates the separation of powers doctrine and courts’ authority. The formula for calculating attorneys’ fees in a Florida’s workers’ compensation statute awarded the attorney in the Castellanos case $164 in fees for 107 hours of legal work.
In Westphal the Court of Appeal found that the law stipulating a 104-week limit on temporary benefits was unjust since it puts injured workers like Westphal in a no-win situation of being unable to receive temporary benefits while also not being eligible for permanent benefits. The appeals court concluded that the Florida statue that limited an injured worker to no more than 104 weeks of temporary disability benefits even when he is totally disabled was unconstitutional. Striking down the 1994 amendment to Florida’s workers’ compensation law that established the 104-week limit for temporary disability, the court re-established the previously existing 260-week limit. After rehearing the court re-interpreted the law to mean workers could apply for and receive permanent benefits at the end of the 104-week period because they are “deemed to be at maximum medical improvement as a matter of law,” even if they could one day return to work. The Florida Supreme Court decided to hear the case,
According to the Florida Division of Workers’ Compensation, the running list of reforms in 2003 included making changes to “Permanent Total Disability, Permanent Total Supplement, Permanent Partial Benefits, Practice Parameters and Protocols mandatory in medical care, changes to Independent Medical Examinations, Attorney Fee Award structure, Compliance, Exemptions, elimination of Supplemental Benefits,” among others.The slew of changes to the system focused on one important goal: getting an injured worker back to work, and doing so by weeding out fraud in the no-fault system. The focus wasn’t on making the insurers, medical field or attorneys happy, it was on the employer and the employee.
Business groups credit the Florida reforms for helping drive down insurance rates (down more than 50 percent) and welcoming significant cost savings that allow for the purchase of better policies and coverage for employees. Insurers credit the Florida reforms for opening up the marketplace and creating a healthy and competitive environment. The medical community credits the Florida reforms for adequate medical reimbursement and access to care. But what you won’t hear is trial lawyers crediting this “no-fault” system for much of anything.
Stakeholders in both California and Florida are closely watching these cases which should be decided in the coming months.