Murray V. Mariner Health Update

Friday, October 24, 2008 | 0

By Mary L. Wakeman

The Florida Supreme Court on Oct. 23 released it's long awaited opinion on the constitutionality of the revised attorney fee statute in section 440.34, Fla. Stat. (2003).

The Court determined that claimants are entitled to recover a "reasonable fee" for services rendered by their attorney (for obtaining certain benefits) and that the statutory formula which limits attorneys' fees to a percentage of benefits obtained is not to be applied in all cases where it would result in an inadequate fee award.  Importantly, the Court did not reach any issue concerning the $1500 fee cap in subsection (7) dealing with medical only claims, since that issue was not before the Court in this particular case.
 
Interestingly, the Court declined to address the constitutional question at all, instead relying on ordinary rules of statutory construction, to find that the "reasonable fee" provisions of subsection (3) control over the percentage formula in subsection (1).
 
The Court found there was a statutory ambiguity between subsection (1) (which requires that any fee paid for a claimant must equal the statutory formula) and subsection (3) (which requires the E/C to pay claimants a "reasonable" fee).  Then, resorting to traditional rules of statutory construction for cases involving statutory ambiguity, the Court found that subsection (3) was a more specific fee provision relating to E/C paid attorney fees, which controlled over the more general attorney fee provisions of subsection (1). Moreover, the Court determined that, to allow the pure statutory formula in subsection (1) to control the amount of fees, would render the "reasonable fee" language in subsection (3) meaningless. Thus, the Court felt bound to adhere to the rule of statutory construction which requires courts not to construe statutes in such a way as to render any other statutory provision meaningless or absurd.
 
Based on the Court's ruling, hourly fees will now be available to claimants' attorneys for all claims NOT involving "medical benefits only."  As the Court did not address any issue regarding the $1500 fee cap for medical only claims in subsection (7), the claimants' bar will have to challenge that provision with another case on appeal, or convince JCC's to apply the "reasonable fee" analysis to medical only claims.  Either way, it seems that ultimate resolution of that issue will also need to be done in the appellate courts.  Also left unanswered is whether the $1500 fee cap for medical only claims can still be paid once per date of accident, with resort to a "reasonable" fee analysis for medical only claims brought thereafter for the same date of accident.

Mary L. Wakeman is at attorney with McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, a Tallahassee-based law firm with offices throughout Florida. This column was reprinted with her permission.