First District Court of Appeals affirms that attorney’s fees are not required to be awarded pursuant to Rule 60Q-6.120 when a motion for summary final order is denied.

The claimant sustained a work injury on July 8, 2020, and filed petitions for benefits against the employer and their employee leasing company. On October 19, 2020, the employer filed a motion for summary final order in regards to the pending petitions for benefits. The employer’s motion alleged that the claimant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the employer. The claimant filed a response, which raised arguments against the granting of the motion. The Judge of Compensation Claims denied the employer’s motion, finding issues of material fact remained.

Subsequently, on October 21, 2020, the employee leasing company filed a motion for summary final order. The employee leasing company’s motion alleged there was a lack of coverage for the claimant’s accident and injuries as the claimant was not an employee of their PEO. The claimant filed a response, which again raised arguments against granting the motion. The judge denied the employee leasing’s company motion and noted that issues of material fact remained. 

In December of 2020, the claimant filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the pending petitions for benefits. Also, the claimant requested in his petition/motion entitlement to attorney’s fee for prevailing on the motions for summary final order. The claimant sought attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.120(4), which permits the judge to impose sanctions in cases where a motion for summary final order is denied if the judge determines the motion violates Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.125(2). 

The judge determined that both the employer and their employee leasing company’s motions for summary final order did not violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.125(2) and did not warrant sanctions. Additionally, the court noted that the claimant did not comply with the 21-day “safe harbor” provision, which required the claimant to serve the motion for fee entitlement on the employer and their employee leasing company at least 21 days prior to filing the motion with the judge. The motion for attorney fee entitlement was denied.

The claimant appealed the decision, and the issue on appeal was whether attorney’s fees are required to be awarded pursuant to Rule 60Q-6.120, when the motion for summary final order is denied. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Judge of Compensation Claims’ denial of the claimant’s motion for attorney fee entitlement per curiam.
 

^{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}