Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Consulate Health Care v. Ho
Citations: 210 So. 3d 782; 2017 WL 729770; 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2600Docket: CASE NO. 1D16-3808
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 23, 2017; Florida; State Appellate Court
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and third-party administrator filed a writ of prohibition to challenge the denial of their motion to disqualify the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC). The motion was based on a comment made by the JCC, overheard by the Petitioners’ attorney, suggesting the JCC was frustrated with the attorney's lengthy speaking. The JCC denied the disqualification motion as legally insufficient, noting that the comment did not explicitly identify the Petitioners' attorney, and even if it did, it did not provide a reasonable basis to claim bias. The court agreed with the JCC on the legal insufficiency of the motion but granted the writ because the response submitted by the Office of Judge of Compensation Claims (OJCC) suggested an adversarial stance by attempting to refute allegations of bias without record support. This was deemed improper as it conveyed the impression that the Petitioners' allegations were inaccurate. The court emphasized that a judge’s attempt to refute claims of partiality, even through a representative, could lead to disqualification. The court also reminded the OJCC that it is not required to respond in prohibition proceedings unless specifically ordered by the court, as per Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(e)(3). Responses filed by a judge in a prohibition-disqualification proceeding are not automatically disqualifying but can be problematic. It is preferable for a judge to refrain from responding, allowing the opposing party to address the disqualification issue. The judge should not have a vested interest in a specific case, and the opposing party typically can demonstrate that disqualification is unwarranted. If the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims (OJCC) chooses to respond on behalf of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), the response should be strictly limited to the legal sufficiency of the motion, avoiding factual rebuttals regarding allegations of partiality, as demonstrated in this case. Consequently, the petition for a writ of prohibition is granted, and the order denying the motion to disqualify the JCC is quashed. A formal writ will not be issued, as it is expected that the Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims will reassign the case to another JCC promptly. Judges Wetherell and Kelsey concur, while Judge Makar concurs in the result with a separate opinion.