PENSACOLA DISTRICT 2010 ANNUAL REPORT

Similar documents
PENSACOLA DISTRICT 2011 ANNUAL REPORT

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Stephen L. Rosen, Judge.

OJCC No: GDAL DIA: 06/26/2017 JUDGE: Daniel A. Lewis FINAL ORDER ON ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (FEE AMOUNT HEARING)

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Henry H. Harnage, Judge.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS FT. MYERS DISTRICT OFFICE COMPENSATION ORDER

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS FT. LAUDERDALE DISTRICT OFFICE

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Henry H. Harnage, Judge.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS WEST PALM BEACH DISTRICT OFFICE

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Thomas G. Portuallo, Judge.

FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE PART I. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims Thomas W. Sculco, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D L. Barry Keyfetz of L. Barry Keyfetz, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Nolan S. Winn, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Nolan S. Winn, Judge.

FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROCEDURE

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DISTRICT

RULES OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER MEDIATION AND HEARING PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS

A hearing was conducted, telephonically, on September 15, 2016 to consider the

ORDER ON AWARD OF CLAIMANT'S APPELLATE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS

FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS GENERAL PROVISIONS [NO CHANGE]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS MIAMI DISTRICT

Filing # Electronically Filed 04/08/ :12:32 PM CEIVED, 4/8/ :18:41, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Nolan S. Winn, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Judge.

WESTPHAL V. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO CHAPTER 440 By Jill Spears (407)

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Ralph J. Humphries, Judge.

F:INAL COMPENSATION ORDER

REPORT OF THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE COMMITTEE

Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development Bureau of Workers' Compensation

held on October 8, Present for the hearing were Martha Fornaris, Esq., counsel for the

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA FAMILY LAW DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE ECFLAD

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. W. James Condry, II, Judge.

Supreme Court of Florida

THE COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF RECORD IN COLORADO CHAPTER 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS

TITLE 04 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

This matter came before me, the undersigned Judge of Compensation Claims, for a

CASE NO. 1D Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Joey D. Oquist, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Diane B. Beck, Judge.

Chief Clerk of the Assembly. Secretary of the Senate. Private Secretary of the Governor

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Lower Tribunal Case No: 1D

CASE NO. 1D Bradley Guy Smith, Lakeland, and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Joseph R. North of the North Law Firm, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant.

After due notice, the above styled matter came before the undersigned Judge of

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN. Effective June 1, 2016 Amended June 19, 2017

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Kathy A. Sturgis, Judge.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Laura Roesch, Judge.

IN THE COURTS OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO ORDER

Consolidated Arbitration Rules

ARBITRATION RULES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ADR COUNCIL

Ordinance NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA:

Article 1. Definitions and General Provisions

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE CONSIDERS BILLS ALLOWING PREJUDGMENT INTEREST FOR ECONOMIC AND NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES

STATE OF FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION FINAL ORDER. "ALT) submitted his Recommended Order to the State Board of Administration (hereafter

Notice of Rulemaking Hearing

CHAPTER 10 - INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION SUBCHAPTER 10A - WORKERS' COMPENSATION RULES SECTION ADMINISTRATION

CITY OF TAYLOR WRITTEN PUBLIC SUMMARY OF FOIA PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Courtesy 440Authority.com

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents

CASE NO. 1D Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioner.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Shelley H. Punancy, Judge.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA. February 29, 2008

E-Filing Court Documents In Escambia County

LOCAL RULES SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA, COUNTY of ORANGE DIVISION 3 CIVIL RULES

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN/MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF SELF INSURANCE (FASI) FILED IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

1. CIVIL RULES GENERAL PROVISIONS ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL LITIGATION MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - UNIFORM LOCAL RULES

CASE NO. 1D Peter D. Webster and Christine Davis Graves of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D M. Kemmerly Thomas of McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Legal Opinion Regarding Florida's Garnishment Law In Relation To The City Of Coral Gables' Duties And Obligations

3. APPLICATION: This policy applies to all County Elected officials, Department Heads, Employees and Agencies of St. Clair County.

Rules of the Court of Appeals of Virginia (not including forms)

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

A SUMMARY OF THE SHORT, SUMMARY, AND EXPEDITED CIVIL ACTION PROGRAMS AROUND THE COUNTRY

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. William Ray Holley, Judge.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPREME COURT RICHMOND COUNTY UNIFORM CIVIL TERM RULES

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Judge.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS Orlando District

Supreme Court of Florida

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Mary A. D'Ambrosio, Judge.

IN THE COURTS OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF FLORIDA

ORDINANCE NO

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Local Rules 39.0 ELECTRONIC FILING OF COURT DOCUMENTS

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS TAMPA DISTRICT OFFICE FINAL COMPENSATION ORDER

CASE NO. 1D Walter C. Wyatt of Bradham, Benson, Lindley, Blevins, Bayliss & Wyatt, P.L.L.C., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees.

COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES

New Jersey No-Fault Automobile Arbitration RULES. Effective May 1, New Jersey No-Fault Automobile Arbitration Rules

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ORDER

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS DAYTONA BEACH DISTRICT

SOUTHWEST INTERTRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS GAINESVILLE DISTRICT OFFICE

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Doris E. Jenkins, Judge.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN /MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Shelley M. Punancy, Judge.

Transcription:

PENSACOLA DISTRICT 21 ANNUAL REPORT

Table of Contents Overview - - - - - - - - 3 Pensacola District History - - - - - - - 4 Pensacola District Achievements 21-27 - - - - 4 Petitions for Benefits - - - - - - - 5 Final Hearings Scheduled - - - - - - 6 Continuances - - - - - - - - 7 From Filing to Final Hearing - - - - - - 8 Final Hearings - - - - - - - - 8 Final Orders - - - - - - - - 9 Other Hearings - - - - - - - - 9 Settlements and Attorney Fees - - - - - - 1 Side Stipulations and Attorney Fees - - - - - 12 Attorney Fee Hearings - - - - - - - 14 Total Attorney Fees Approved - - - - - - 15 Final Order Summary - - - - - - - 16 Page 2

OVERVIEW Workers Compensation is governed by the provisions of Ch. 44 of the Florida Statutes which defines the rights and responsibilities of injured employees, their employers and the employer s insurance carrier. The system is intended to be self-executing in the delivery of benefits to injured worker. Many times however, the self-executing intent of the statute fails and a dispute arises as to what benefits are due. Adjudication of these disputes falls within the province of the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims (OJCC). When disputes arise as a result of industrial accidents in Escambia, Santa Rosa or Okaloosa County, the Pensacola District Office has jurisdiction. Disputes generally arise when an injured worker files a Petition for Benefits (PFB) alleging the employer/carrier (E/C) has failed to provide indemnity and/or medical benefits required by Ch. 44. If the employee is represented by an attorney and is successful in prosecuting the Petition, he or she may be entitled to recover attorney fees from the E/C. In addition to adjudicating claims involving disputed benefits and ruling upon motions filed during such litigation, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) is also responsible for reviewing and approving settlements involving injured workers not represented by attorneys and approving attorney s fees due injured workers who are represented by counsel. Requests for approval of such attorney fees arise when parties resolve disputed prior to a final hearing or when parties agree to settle the case in its entirety. When parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding attorney fee issues, a Motion for Attorney Fees may be filed requiring adjudication by the JCC. In 22 DOAH began posting orders and other pertinent OJCC case information on the internet providing access by the parties and other interested individuals. In 25 the Pensacola District became the first District to publish its own website providing user friendly access to District scheduling and personnel information as well as every Final Order issued since November 15, 21. In the summer of 25, the Pensacola District began offering parties the opportunity to e-file pleadings and other litigation documentation. In November 25, e-filing capabilities were available throughout the entire OJCC system and became mandatory in October 21 for all represented parties. In 26 the Pensacola District began operations as a paperless office. In 27, the Pensacola District was the first to implement e-service of Orders and Notices to represented parties. E-service has resulted in a direct and substantial cost savings for both the Pensacola District and the Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). In October 29, DOAH began implementation of e-service throughout all OJCC District Offices. In 21, in recognition of the significant cost savings of e- service, the Pensacola District was honored with a Prudential-Davis Productivity Award of Distinction. In 28, Video-Teleconferencing (VTC) capabilities were installed in the Pensacola District Office. Utilizing such capability, in October 29 the Pensacola District began exercising jurisdiction over ten (1) new claims each month filed each month in the Ft. Lauderdale District. VTC was also utilized from April through October of 21 when the Pensacola and Jacksonville Districts oversaw day to day operations, motions and Final Hearings of the Lakeland District while such district awaited the appointment of a new Judge of Compensation Claims. Page 3

PENSACOLA DISTRICT HISTORY Michael J. DeMarko retired as Judge of the Pensacola District (previously District A-West) on November 14, 21. David W. Langham served as Judge of Compensation Claims from November 15, 21 until the appointment of Nolan S. Winn on December 18, 26. PENSACOLA DISTRICT ACHIEVEMENTS 23-21 21 Awarded Davis Productivity Award of Distinction for e-service initiative implemented in 27. 29 Trial District for DOAH implementation of e-service. Trial District for First DCA implementation of e-filing of appellate record. Publication, with Judge Kathy Sturgis, of JCC Manual. 28 Installation of Video-Teleconferencing (VTC) system. 27 Implementation of e-service of Orders and Notices. 26 Creation and publication of topical final order list on the internet. Completion of paperless office implementation. 25 Creation and Publication of District website. Creation and Publication of chronological list of final orders. Implementation of paperless office process. 24 Implementation of expedited final hearing procedure. Implementation of remote digital hearing recording. Recovery from Hurricane Ivan. Development of paperless office proposal. 23 Implementation of District Deputy Clerk process. Investigation and implementation of digital hearing recording. Upgrade of computer hardware from Pentium processors. Page 4

PETITIONS FOR BENEFITS In 29, Petitions for Benefits ( PFB ) filed in the Pensacola District increased for the first time since 22. In 21, the number of Petitions filed in the Pensacola District increased once again despite a near double digit decrease Statewide. 4 3 2 1 Petitions Filed in PNS Statewide Average per JCC 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 PFB s Filed PNS District 1933 1527 1343 136 1436 1621 Change from Prior Year -28.% -21.% -12.% -2.7% 1.% 12.9% 25 26 27 28 29 21 Petitions Filed Statewide 96,89 9,955 82,67 71,979 72,31 65,5 Avg. per JCC 3125 2934 2665 2249 2251 247 Change from Prior Year -16.4% -6.1% -9.2% -12.9% 7.2% -9.1% Page 5

FINAL HEARINGS SCHEDULED As a result of the increase in the number of Petitions filed in the Pensacola District in 21, there was a significant increase in the number of Final Hearings scheduled. The number of PFB s filed each year however, is not congruous with the number of Final Hearings scheduled for several reasons. First, Final Hearings are scheduled not only on PFB s, but on Motions for Attorney s Fees and motions requiring evidentiary hearings such as Motions to Enforce Settlements. Secondly, by scheduling Final Hearings immediately upon receipt of a PFB or motions requiring such hearings, the date selected by this office may result in a conflict requiring re-scheduling. Final Hearings Scheduled 3 25 2 15 1 5 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Final Hearings Scheduled 2834 212 1535 1563 162 1838 Change from Prior Year -22.8% -29.% -23.7% 1.8% 2.5% 14.7% Page 6

CONTINUANCES Petitions received in the Pensacola District are initially scheduled for Final Hearing approximately one hundred and forty (14) days after filing. As previously indicated, scheduling conflicts or unforeseen circumstances may result in the continuance of a Final Hearing. Occasionally, a Final Hearing must be continued beyond the 21 day time period in most instances due to appointment of an Expert Medical Advisor (EMA) or scheduling conflicts of medical providers. In 21, six (6) Final Hearings were conducted beyond the 21 day period. Continuances 1 8 6 4 2 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Continuances Granted 98 6 11 8 9 6 Change from Prior Year -25.8% -38.8% -81.6% -27.3% 12.5% -33.3% Page 7

FROM FILING TO FINAL HEARING By statute, the Final Hearing is required to be conducted within two hundred and ten (21) days of the filing of the PFB. In 21, Final Hearings in the Pensacola District were held on average one hundred eighty-seven (187) days after the Petition was filed, well within the 21 day mandate. Average Number Days from Filing PFB to Final Hearing Statewide Average 5 4 3 2 1 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Average Days from Filing to Final Hearing 198 159 163 159 144 187 Statewide Average from Filing to Final Hearing 41 379 323 247 Change from Prior Year -6.% -19.8% 2.5% -2.5% -9.4% 29.9% FINAL HEARINGS A Final Hearing is defined as a hearing involving the submission of evidence and the issuance of a Final Order. In 21, forty-six (46) Final Hearings were conducted in the Pensacola District. Final Hearings Held Statewide Average 1 8 6 4 2 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Final Hearings Held 97 52 57 69 55 46 Statewide Average 43 54 6 65 Change from Prior Year -3.3% - 43.5% 9.6% 21.1% -2.3% -16.4% Page 8

FINAL ORDERS The workers compensation statute mandates that a Final Order be issued within thirty (3) days of the conclusion of each Final Hearing. In 21, Final Orders were entered on average 5.6 days of the conclusion of the Final Hearing. Average Number Days From Hearing to Final Order Statewide Average 6 5 4 3 2 1 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Average Days from Final Hearings to Final Order 6.5 6.6 11.2 8.3 5.2 5.6 Statewide Average from Final Hearing to Order 54. 37. 25. 19. Change from Prior Year - 33.% 1.5% 69.7% -25.9% -37.3% 7.7% OTHER HEARINGS HELD In addition to Final Hearings, claims often require hearings and Orders other than a Final Order. Such hearings include discovery motions and settlement hearings for unrepresented individuals. In 21, the number of such hearings increased 22.3%, most likely due to hearings conducted in the Lakeland District while awaiting the appointment of a new JCC. Page 9

Other Hearings Held 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Other Hearings Held 22 156 27 252 273 334 Change from Prior Year -44.7% -29.1% 73.1% -6.7% 8.3% 22.3% SETTLEMENTS AND ATTORNEY FEES In 21, eight hundred and eighty-five (885) settlements totaling $29,727,5.55 with attorney s fees of $3,43,612.16 were approved in the Pensacola District. These settlements also resulted in the recovery of Child Support Arrearages of $518,121.33, bringing the total Child Support Arrearages collected by the Pensacola District since 22 to $4,479,679.63. Orders approving the settlement attorney s fee requests were entered on average 2.2 days after the parties filed their motion. No attorney s fee in any of the 885 settlements approved exceeded the statutorily presumed fair fee set forth in Ch. 44.34(1). However, in 16 of the 885 attorney s fees approved, Claimant attorney s requested and were awarded a fee less than the statutory fair fee. In other words, in 21, Claimant attorney s waived $111,115.31 in fees they were legally entitled to receive from their clients. Total Settlement Amounts 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, 25 26 27 28 29 21 Page 1

Attorney Fees Approved on Settlements Child Support Recovered 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, 25 26 27 28 29 21 Average Settlement Amount 4, 3, 2, 1, 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Settlement Amount 39,167,637 33,35,635 31,689,61 37,953,833 26,61,39 29,727,51 Attorney Fees 4,558,49 3,868,969 3,711,7 4,48,378 2,872,149 3,43,612 Child Support 526,275 556,262 328,462 475,923 417,46 518,121 No. of Settlements 985 963 96 123 791 885 Page 11

SIDE STIPULATIONS AND ATTORNEY FEES An employee s attorney is not limited to a fee based solely upon the settlement value of a claim. An attorney may also obtain a fee based upon the value of benefits secured for the client prior to settlement. Many times, the parties agree upon the amount of such fees and submit side stipulations for JCC approval. Such stipulated attorney fees are based either upon an hourly rate or the statutory rate based upon the value of the benefits secured (25/2/15% or 2/15/1% depending on the date of accident). Orders Approving Attorney Fee Stipulations 5 4 3 2 1 25 26 27 28 29 21 Amount of Stipulated Attorney Fees 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, 25 26 27 28 29 21 Percent of Stipulations Approved Above Statutory Rate 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 25 26 27 28 29 21 Page 12

Average Stipulated Hourly Attorney Fee Rate 2 15 1 5 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Amt. of Stipulated Attorney Fees $1,566,7 $911,855 $1,356,864 $1,388,524 $97,736 1,883,728$ # Side Stipulations 5 374 49 366 288 399 # Stips Above Stat Fee 71 87 137 127 47 95 % Above Stat Fee 14.3% 23.3% 33.5% 34.7% 16.3% 23.8% # Hourly Side Stips 414 286 272 219 241 287 Avg. Hourly Rate $149.13 $14.48 $152.25 $191.33 $179.9 $181.32 In 23, the legislature amended the statute eliminating, in most instances, payment of attorney fees based upon an hourly rate. The intent of such amendment was to limit payment of attorney fees, whether pursuant to settlement or side stipulation, to a statutory fee based upon the value of benefits secured. In October 28, the Supreme Court in Murray v. Mariner Health ruled the 23 amendment did not eliminate a claimant s right to recover from the E/C a reasonable fee based upon an hourly rate calculation which may exceed the statutory fee. Of the 287 hourly rate based side stipulations submitted for approval in 29, 266 were for dates of accidents which would have been subject to the 23 amendment. Following the decision in Murray however, in 123 of the 266 cases, the parties stipulated to payment of attorney fees of at least $363,896.69 greater than would have been payable utilizing the statutory fee formula. Page 13

ATTORNEY FEE HEARINGS When parties cannot agree on the amount of attorney fees and therefore are unable to submit a side stipulation, a final evidentiary hearing is held before the JCC. In 21, 19.6% of all Final Hearings conducted in the Pensacola District were hearings solely addressing attorney s fees. Final Hearings on Amt. of Atty. Fees 12 1 8 6 4 2 25 26 27 28 29 21 Amt. of Atty. Fees Awarded 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, 25 26 27 28 29 21 Percent of Final Hearings Addressing Amt. of Atty. Fees 2 15 1 5 25 26 27 28 29 21 Page 14

25 26 27 28 29 21 Amt. of Atty. Fees Awarded $22,535 $4,544 $15,758 $59,14 $148,291 $12,446 Final Hearings on Atty. Fees 11 2 4 12 1 9 % Final Hrgs. on Atty. Fees 12.% 3.8% 7.% 17.4% 18.2% 19.6% TOTAL ATTORNEY FEES APPROVED As discussed above, an injured employee s attorney may receive a fee (1) based on the settlement value of a claim; (2) when the parties stipulated as to the amount of the fee due; or (3) when the JCC issues an Order awarding a fee in those instances where parties have been unable to agree on such amount. In 21, cumulative attorney s fees approved in the Pensacola District amounted to $5,396,925.25. Fees From Settlement Fees From Stipulation Fees From Hearing 6,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 27 28 29 21 Settlement Attorney Fees $4,558,49 $3,868,969 $3,711,7 $4,48,378 $2,972,149 $3,43,612 Stipulated Attorney Fees 1,566,7 911,855 1,356,864 1,388,524 97,736 1,863,868 Final Hearing Attorney Fees 22,535 4,544 15,758 59,14 148,291 12,446 Total Approved Fees $6,327,14 $4,821,368 $5,83,692 $5,928,42 $4,91,176 $5,396,925 Page 15

21 FINAL ORDERS Claimant Type MH Date PFB Filed Days Order Date Order Days to Richards 1/27/1 8/26/8 518 (1) 1/29/1 2 Cotton EM 2/9/1 1/27/9 15 2/9/1 Jones EM 2/9/1 1/8/1 32 2/1/1 1 Skipper 2/22/1 8/28/9 178 2/23/1 1 Martin 2/23/1 9/8/9 168 3/2/1 7 Glenn 2/24/1 9/14/9 163 3/8/1 12 Jones 2/24/1 8/17/9 191 3/8/1 12 Dandridge 3/5/1 11/16/9 19 3/9/1 4 Watson 3/8/1 8/26/9 194 PCA 3/11/1 3 Berman EM 4/12/1 8/31/9 163 4/16/1 4 Lovelace 4/13/1 11/4/9 16 4/22/1 9 Hildreth FA 4/2/1 12/22/9 119 4/27/1 7 Biro 5/5/1 12/3/9 153 5/6/1 1 Bartsch FA 5/1/1 1/26/1 14 5/11/1 1 Woods 6/1/1 11/5/9 28 6/3/1 2 Lovett FA 6/21/1 2/9/1 133 6/22/1 1 Holland EM 6/22/1 2/24/1 118 6/23/1 1 Penton 6/2/1 12/3/9 182 6/4/1 2 Feacher 6/22/1 1/25/1 149 6/29/1 7 Meneses 6/29/1 3/16/1 15 6/3/1 1 Stravato FA 7/19/1 3/29/1 112 7/22/1 3 Jones FE 7/19/1 2/23/1 146 7/22/1 3 Yukenavitch 7/21/1 11/3/9 233 (1) 723/1 2 Richards FA 7/26/1 4/6/1 111 8/3/1 8 Brito(LKL) FE 8/11/1 12/18/9 ---- 8/12/1 1 Kirnes(LKL) 8/1/1 2/9/1 ---- 8/12/1 2 Moore(LKL) EM 8/1/1 7/15/1 26 8/13/1 3 WilliamsEM 8/3/1 4/19/1 133 8/31/1 1 Carter(LKL) 8/31/1 2/25/1 ---- 9/2/1 2 Fuerte(FTL) 9/8/1 3/2/1 19 9/15/1 7 Ferreira 9/2/1 11/9/9 315 (2) 9/21/1 1 Lewis 9/22/1 7/26/7 1151 (3) 9/28/1 6 Goodall 9/28/1 5/2/1 131 9/29/1 1 Rutherford FA 1/5/1 1/27/1 251 (4) 1/12/1 7 Page 16

Byrd(LKL) 1/21/1 7/1/9 --- pending 11/2/1 13 Johnson(LKL) 1/19/1 4/23/1 --- 11/3/1 15 Bell(LKL) 1/13/1 9/2/1 41 11/9/1 27 Berman FE 11/8/1 5/26/1 166 11/1/1 2 Escobar(FTL) 11/3/1 1/8/9 391 (5) 11/17/1 14 Avery 11/15/1 4/28/1 21 11/22/1 7 Stone 11/15/1 5/2/1 179 pending 12/2/1 17 Rogers EM 11/3/1 8/17/1 14 12/3/1 3 Long 11/29/1 7//22/1 13 12/6/1 7 Johnson EM 11/29/1 1/2/1 4 pending 12/7/1 8 Wible 12/7/1 3/8/1 218 (6) 12/2/1 13 Lovelace 12/13/1 5/2/1 152 12/2/1 7 (46) (187.15) (5.6) EM evidentiary motion FA fee amount FE fee entitlement SFO summary final order ------------------------------------------------------------------- APPELLATE REVIEW: 4 Appeals/ 1Affirmed/ Reversal/ 3 Pending REVERSALS None ------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL HEARINGS CONCLUDED AFTER DATE OF HEARING: None. ------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL HEARING HELD BEYOND 21 DAYS: (1) MH continued as Dr. Richman unable to schedule deposition prior to originally scheduled Final Hearing. (2) MH re-scheduled following Claimant s failure to appear. (3) MH continued as first EMA stricken, second withdrew and Claimant failed to appear at initial appt. with third EMA. (4) MH continued to consolidate with Motion to Determine Amount Due necessary re value of future benefits. (5) - MH continued to afford uninsured Employer opportunity to retain counsel. (6) MH continued as Dr. Davis unable to schedule deposition prior to originally scheduled Final Hearing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL ORDERS ISSUED BEYOND 3 DAYS: None. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 17