Workers' Compensation

Listed below is McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver & Stern, P.A.'s workers' compensation case law database. The database dates back until 1971 and includes over 5500 workers' compensation court decisions.

To view the case summaries, select one of the general topics listed below.


Amato v. Winn Dixie Stores

810 So.2d 979, 27 FLW D391

Whether a motion to disqualify a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) was timely filed generally will involve a factual determination and thus on appeal, the competent substantial evidence standard for review will be used. Allegations contained in a Motion to Disqualify are reviewed under the de novo standard as to whether the motion is legally sufficient as a matter of law. The appellate court need not defer to the JCC on such questions of law. Motions to disqualify a JCC are governed by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160 and Florida Rule of Workers' Compensation Procedure 4.155(a). Timeliness of such motion should be within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of facts constituting grounds for the motion. The motion should be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e). Based on competent and substantial evidence, the appellate court affirmed the JCC's determination that the Motion to Disqualify had been timely filed. As to the appropriateness of the Motion to Disqualify, it was alleged that the JCC had entered an order denying benefits before all evidence had been presented and the claimant reasonably believed he was prejudiced by the judge's actions. The standard for determining whether the motion is legally sufficient involves a determination as to whether the alleged facts would give a reasonably prudent person a well founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Court concluded that claimant's Motion to Disqualify the JCC in this circumstance was legally sufficient, i.e., the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial proceeding before the trial judge. This inadvertence by the JCC encroached upon the claimant's fundamental right to due process even though in this circumstance, the judge withdrew the final order denying benefits since all evidence had not been received into evidence. Dissenting opinion.