Cases

Claimant ’s attorney withdrew from the representation of the claimant and filed a Notice of Lien for attorney’s fees. Thereafter, the employer/carrier settled case with claimant. There was some question as to whether the claimant’s former attorney had been notified of the settlement. Subsequently, the JCC dismissed the claimant’s former attorney’s lien for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 4.075(e), Florida Rules of Workers’ Compensation Procedures. Court ruled that the attorney’s fee/cost lien filed is not subject to Rule 4.075(e).

The perfection of a charging lien requires only timely notice to the effected parties. The employer/carrier, as well as their attorney, had notice of the attorney’s charging lien at the time of the settlement and therefore had an affirmative obligation to inform the claimant’s attorney of the settlement stipulation. Since there was a dispute as to whether the claimant’s former attorney had notice of the settlement, case remanded for evidentiary hearing to make this determination.

Although the failure to prosecute provisions of the rule have no applicability in defending the assertion of an attorney’s fee lien, Laches may be applicable. The Doctrine of Laches requires proof of 1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted; and 2) prejudice to the party asserting the defense.