Testing Grounds The latest industry being outsourced to India is clinical drug trials. And any number of tragic things can happen on the way to your medicine cabinet.
Friday Night Rewind It doesn't matter which team you cheer for. We've got video previews of every high school football program in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Hernando County.
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a lawyer representing an injured worker is entitled to "reasonable" fees, setting the stage for another bruising legislative battle over the Florida law that ensures the rights of injured workers.
The decision reinterprets a controversial 2003 reform of the state's workers' compensation law that capped some lawyers fees.
Attorneys that represent injured workers hailed the case as a success, but industry groups warned that it will drive up the cost of doing business in Florida.
"It certainly is a favorable opinion for injured workers and their attorneys," said Greg Lower, a Jacksonville attorney with Fowler White Boggs Banker, who was not involved in the case. "It was not a favorable opinion for industry."
Industry groups lobbied hard for the 2003 reform in an attempt to drive down the cost of workers' compensation insurance. At the time, Florida's businesses paid some of the highest rates in the nation. Since the reform was enacted, rates have fallen nearly 60 percent and were slated to fall still further next year. But the savings came at the expense of injured workers, say labor advocates and attorneys that represent injured workers.
"Having clients not in court results in decreased costs. How can it not?" said Leslie Riviere, a workers' compensation attorney in Tampa who was not involved in the case. "But it also results in injured workers not receiving compensation for medical bills and lost wages that they'd otherwise be entitled to."
The Florida Chamber of Commerce signaled that it will lobby the Legislature to revise the law.
"This is just another example of plaintiffs' trial lawyers attempting to bleed more attorney fees from Florida employers using our state's workers' compensation system," read a statement from David Daniel, vice president of government affairs with the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-0 in the case, Emma Murray vs. Mariner Health Care, which stemmed from an injury suffered five years ago by Murray. A nurse in her late 50s, she was hurt hoisting a patient at the nursing home where she worked. Her employer's insurance carrier denied her claim, chalking up her injury to a pre-existing condition.
Murray hired Port Charlotte lawyer Brian Sutter and won $3,244 in back wages and medical costs. Since Mariner Health Care lost the suit, it also had to pay Murray's court costs, but the 2003 law had imposed a strict formula on how much a worker's attorney could be paid. Murray's attorney was entitled to $648 for the 80 hours he spent preparing her case — about $8 an hour. Mariner Health Care paid its own lawyers about $16,000.
Sutter argued that the inequity — letting the employer pay its lawyer $150 an hour, while the injured worker's lawyer was limited to $8 an hour — left the worker with an unconstitutional disadvantage. The law gives insurers incentive to deny legitimate claims like Murray's, since few lawyers will take on complex and expensive cases for such meager fees, Sutter said this year.
The Supreme Court sidestepped the constitutional issue, and ruled Thursday that the 2003 law was unclear since it does contain a reference to "reasonable" fees. The court ruled that the ambiguity should be decided in favor of Murray's attorney and ordered Mariner to pay fees of about $16,000, which amounts to close to $200 an hour.
Kevin McCarty, Florida's insurance commissioner, promised a quick review of the decision to determine the impact on the cost of workers' compensation insurance.
Rates were slated for another drop this year, and it's unclear what impact the decision will have. Adam Babington, legislative counsel for the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said he expects more information on insurance rates in the next few weeks.
Asjylyn Loder can be reached at aloder@sptimes.com or (813) 225-3117.
[Last modified: Oct 27, 2008 04:13 PM]
Comments on this article
by Steve
Oct 27, 2008 4:13 PM
How did this attorney spend 80 hours to secure a $3244 settlement for a client? Why did an insurance company invest $16,000 defending a $3244 claim? None of this makes sense.
by EEW
Oct 25, 2008 1:38 PM
The real problem here is that the lawyers keep their own time clock. This sounds like about an eight hour job. Judges and lawyers are one and the same. They protect their own.
by Jason
Oct 25, 2008 1:38 PM
Make it a felony punishable by a minimum 5 years in prison for fraud on either side of the coin and watch the legal cases come to a halt.
by Julie
Oct 25, 2008 1:38 PM
Murray only received a little over $3,000 in benefits, but her attorney probably has had enough other case settlements over $50,000 where he netted quite a few thousand more for a lot less work on those cases, so things have a way of balancing.
by Ratso
Oct 25, 2008 1:38 PM
This is an extremely biased case, the settlement was only $3000. Usually these cases are settled for much more money than that. Prior to 2003, more money went to lawyers per workers comp claim THAN ANY OTHER STATE IN THE COUNTRY. SYSTEM BROKEN
by Joyce
Oct 24, 2008 8:04 PM
How about the carriers start paying off on legitimate claims so the employees don't have to get an atty. of course, the loosers have to stop making bogus claims & then hiring firms like morgan & morgan to collect on $ they should not get.
by Merv
Oct 24, 2008 5:58 PM
If restricting legal fees is the answer, then restrict the fees for both parties and let a Judge decide the merits of the case. The bad 2003 changes created savings by limiting Atty fees for injured workers while employers spent unlimted tax dollars
by Bob
Oct 24, 2008 5:47 PM
It is all about who can reach deeper into the others pocket with little regard to the injured party. In the end who ends up paying. It's not the poor attys it's only when they can't leagally rape you do they start this poor me crap.
by SCR
Oct 24, 2008 5:45 PM
their brethern a very hefty holiday gift. Note the timing of the decision as well - the legislature is not in session. The ruling has been anticipated for many months!
by SCR
Oct 24, 2008 5:09 PM
You want to know the impact on rates? Try a 30% increase! The only winners with this decision are the lawyers - on both sides. The losers? That would be the injured workers and small businesses. Basically, these judges who are also lawyers just gave
by Snoz
Oct 24, 2008 1:42 PM
The numbers tell the story. Big business thought it was worth 16K to fight paying only 3.5K to an employee and took it that extreme because they could afford $8 an hour in defense fees if they lost. That's injustice. Cut big bizz lawyers to $8/hr.
by Haven
Oct 24, 2008 12:19 PM
Hey Charley, the worker didn't get just $3K, she most likely also received a future award of worker's comp. That's worth a heckuva lot more!
by Darren
Oct 24, 2008 12:19 PM
This also demonstrates how this is desigend to strip workers of their rights. Make it infeasible for an attorney to work on it, and leave the injured party to fend for herself, and her legitimate (as proven in court) claim is denied.
by Chip
Oct 24, 2008 12:19 PM
What's the problem? The lawyer still got 5x what the victim was awarded. I guess attorneys don't consider it fair unless they get all of the victim's compensation, too.
by Darren
Oct 24, 2008 12:15 PM
This legislation, like tort "reforms" pushed through in another Bush governed state, Texas was originally designed to "gut" workers comp, making it very difficult for legitimately hurt people to get any kind of help, and this case illustrates that.
by Kenny
Oct 24, 2008 12:13 PM
How can anyone actually get hurt? Moving a box of Chinese made products for an 'American Corporation' that doesn't make anything in America? That's about the only way. Bring back the tariffs and add the money to Soc. Sec....
by Mikes
Oct 24, 2008 11:10 AM
Joe the Plumber has a lien on his house. Is Joe the plumber really Joe six pack?
by Jim
Oct 24, 2008 10:34 AM
As a former advocate for worker's comp. defendants, I stopped representing clients because the fees did not justify the work I put into the cases. I had to repay almost a quarter of a million dollars in law school tuition loans on about $8.00 an hour
by Ray
Oct 24, 2008 10:33 AM
Hey Paul, FYI, the attorney can define reasonable any way he wants in the fee agreement, but it means nothing...the judge makes that determination based upon enumerated factors in the Rules of Professional Conduct and the given facts of each case.
by Sarah
Oct 23, 2008 11:58 PM
I'm sure Sarah Palin is wooping it up for Joe six pack because of this one.
by Adam
Oct 23, 2008 9:44 PM
What "reasonable fees" means: http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/A8644F215162F9DE85257164004C0429
by Adam
Oct 23, 2008 9:42 PM
Paul, actually "reasonable" is comprehensively defined in the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.
by Jayson
Oct 23, 2008 8:35 PM
GO RAYS!!
by Paul
Oct 23, 2008 7:44 PM
Here's the problem:
These IDIOT lawyers refuse to define "reasonable" just in case they can suck a few more dollars out of the judgement....
by L J
Oct 23, 2008 7:44 PM
the real answer is treat your employees FAIRLY and they won't have to sue to get treated right! The Ins Co's are still outta control here !
by Annie
Oct 23, 2008 7:15 PM
Workers' Comp. has a great deal to do with job availability. Badly abused by employers and employees, huge costs in just deciding/proving an injury is work related. We all remember videos of folks with bad backs doing roof repairs.
by WIlliam
Oct 23, 2008 7:14 PM
I think that everyone is missing the big picture: An Employer spent $16,000 to fight paying $3,244 that was due an Employee.
This is what is wrong with Workers Compensation.
by Metro
Oct 23, 2008 7:13 PM
Just wanted to second Lee's suggestion. Very smart.
by Lee
Oct 23, 2008 6:05 PM
I have a solution. To reduce costs, don't let the workers' comp defense lawyers get paid anything more than what the Chamber wants plaintiffs' lawyers to get paid. That should level the playing field.
by Nathan
Oct 23, 2008 5:31 PM
Leave it to someone to spin this story into an anti-Obama rant. [insert eye rolling here]
by Angie
Oct 23, 2008 5:29 PM
Finally, the Florida Supreme Court has decided to return rights to work comp victims. Without this decision they would have become unable to find a lawyer to represent them. Under the old law the attorney got $8 an hour in this case.
by Carol
Oct 23, 2008 5:27 PM
If we're going to limit the fees for an employees lawyer in order to keep the workers comp insurance down, then we need to limit the fee that the employer can spend on it as well. The limits need to be the same on both sides. case closed!!!
by Reality
Oct 23, 2008 5:25 PM
So much for lower workers compensation charges in Florida.
by Charley
Oct 23, 2008 5:23 PM
So, the person who was hurt got $3K and the Lawyer got $16K - that sure sound fair
by max
Oct 23, 2008 5:20 PM
Nice job, Florida. Now watch more jobs pour out of your state. Elect Obama and watch your economy suffer even more as he taxes businesses to death. Business will just pass down those extra taxes to you and me. Liberal judges & higher taxes = Obama
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.