Jose Delgado v. City Concrete Systems, Inc. and FCCI Insurance company
220 So. 3d 529
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Claimant (Delgado) suffered a work-related hearing loss in April 2014; Employer/Carrier (City Concrete/FCCI) initially denied but later accepted and paid benefits.
- Parties stipulated to a $20,000 attorney’s fee payable by the E/C for past benefits secured and submitted the stipulation for JCC approval after the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Castellanos.
- The JCC convened a brief telephonic hearing (about ten pages of transcript), requested claimant’s counsel’s time records, then entered an order disapproving the $20,000 stipulation and reducing the fee to $4,293.80 (statutory guideline amount).
- The JCC’s written order assumed factual findings (suggesting collusion/fraud) beyond what was discussed at the hearing and denied rehearing requests on the ground that time to submit evidence had passed.
- The First DCA found the record did not support that an evidentiary hearing occurred and held the parties lacked notice and opportunity to be heard on the issues the JCC ultimately decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JCC lawfully reduced/disapproved stipulated attorney fee without adequate notice or evidentiary hearing | Delgado: JCC lacked basis to reduce agreed $20,000 fee absent proper notice/evidence; due process violated | E/C: JCC has authority to review/approve fees and may disapprove unsupported stipulations | Reversed: JCC violated due process by deciding issues not placed at issue and without an evidentiary hearing; remand for properly noticed hearing |
| Whether JCC may infer collusion/fraud based on limited record and telephonic discussion | Delgado: No, allegations of collusion were never raised at hearing and parties had no opportunity to rebut | E/C: (implicit) JCC may investigate fee arrangements when questions arise | Held against JCC: court may not base findings of fraud/collusion without giving parties notice and chance to present evidence |
| Whether the JCC properly awarded the difference between stipulated fee and reduced fee to claimant | Delgado: Awarding the difference without due process and without proper basis was improper | E/C: (implicit) JCC can reallocate amounts after disapproval | Held: Remanded — JCC may act on fees but must afford due process before reallocation |
| Scope of JCC authority to approve/disapprove fees post-Castellanos | Delgado: Approval required but must follow due process | E/C: JCC retains authority to scrutinize fees despite Castellanos | Held: JCC retains authority under §440.34(1) but must exercise it consistent with due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 192 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016) (held statutory guideline-fee mandate unconstitutional)
- Luces v. Red Ventures, 140 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (JCC may disapprove stipulated fee but must allow parties to present evidence)
- Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (due process prohibits ruling on issues not placed at issue so parties can fairly present their case)
- Isaac v. Green Iguana, Inc., 871 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversal where JCC ruled without prior notice and opportunity to defend)
- Moya-Perguero v. Trucks & Parts of Tampa, Inc., 77 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (order inconsistent with hearing’s scope denies due process)
- School Dist. of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dickson, 67 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (parties entitled to notice of issues to be decided at hearing)
- Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim, 639 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (reversed award that expanded hearing scope without notice)