Cases

Costs awarded against claimant under subsection 440.34(3), Florida Statutes.  The claimant argued in this appeal that some of the costs awarded were unreasonable and not recoverable under Florida law, specifically the cost for her deposition and the cost of medical record review by a physician.  An award of specific costs is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. In reviewing a discretionary act, the appellate court should apply the "reasonableness test" to determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion.

On appeal, the cost for the claimant's deposition was awarded against the claimant and this was affirmed on appeal.  There was no proof that an extra charge for the claimant's deposition for an expedited deposition transcript was included in the cost.

In awarding costs, Rule 60Q-6.124(3)(e) provides that the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in civil actions shall be considered by the JCC in determining the reasonableness of an award of cost reimbursement. These guidelines are advisory only and the taxation of costs in any particular proceeding is within the broad discretion of the judge. The moving party requesting the payment of costs has the burden to show that requested costs were reasonably necessary to defend or prosecute the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was taken.  In this case, the doctor's services under question related to a medical record review and a conference with the doctor but no evidence was presented establishing a separate cost of each service.   In this case, the claimant voluntarily withdrew her only pending petition for benefits related to a claim that had any relevance to a conference with a doctor.  Nonetheless, the employer/carrier's attorney prepaid for a conference with the doctor and met with the doctor.  In this case, the court determined that because of the dismissal of the petition, a conference was not reasonably necessary at the time it was held and therefore, the cost was denied.