Cases

A Writ of Prohibition is the appropriate vehicle to test the validity of a denial of a Motion for Disqualification of a JCC.

A Verified Motion for Disqualification must contain an actual factual foundation for disqualifying a judge.  A mere "subjective fear" of bias will not be legally sufficient; rather, the fear must be objectively reasonable.  In determining whether a motion to disqualify is legally sufficient,  the appellate court reviews the motion's allegations under a de novo standard. The judge against whom the motion to disqualify is directed must determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged.  Thus the facts and reasons for disqualification must be taken as true.  Significantly, the standards for disqualification do not turn on a demonstration of actual bias or personality of the part of the judge or the judge's own perception of his or her impartiality.  Rather, disqualification is required where the facts alleged and established which must be taken as true would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial proceeding.

In a previous case, the JCC in question had referred the claimant to the Florida Bar.

The JCC had referred the claimant's attorney to the Florida Bar for pursuing a claimant paid attorney's fee in an improper situation.  In referring the claimant's attorney to the Bar, the JCC found that the claimant's attorney was "not credible," had made false misleading written statements and had willfully overcharged for legal services.

While reports of unprofessionalism of a particular attorney to The Florida Bar cannot be the basis of disqualifications, the judge in this instance charged the claimant's attorney in previous proceedings with more than just unprofessionalism,  Not only had the judge made findings of unprofessionalism by the claimant's attorney, findings were also  made of criminal deceit as a part of an established pattern of behavior in other cases not before him.  There was a finding of dishonesty and the claimant's attorney had committed a crime in these other proceedings suggesting that such findings went beyond just a finding of unprofessionalism.

Based on allegations in the Motion to Disqualify, the JCC erred in not disqualifying himself in these proceedings.