Cases

Appellate review of constitutional issues is de novo.  Because the JCC does not have authority to address the constitutional issues, the JCC in this case made no findings on the constitutional challenge.  Even though the JCC does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, the claimant is not prohibited from creating a supporting record before the JCC as related to constitutional issues.

In this case, the claimant argued that the imposition of prevailing party costs ordered payable by the claimant was unconstitutional as a denial of access to courts.  In order to establish standing to make this challenge, the claimant first must demonstrate an injury which is both real and immediate, not conjectural and hypothetical. In this case, the claimant argued that the requirement of claimant paid costs has a potential chilling effect on the pursuit of claims.  However, there was no evidence presented to support a real or immediate injury to the claimant. Although the claimant may well be adversely affected by the prevailing cost statute, he did not explain how this distinguished him from the claimant whose standing was denied in the case of Punsky v. Clay Cty Board of Cty. Comm'rs, 60 So.3d 1088(Fla. 1st DCA 2011).  Because the claimant failed to establish a real and immediate injury resulting in a denial of access to courts, the court determined that he lacked the necessary standing to pursue a constitutional challenge on this ground.  Court affirmed the award of claimant paid costs.