III.         Emma Murray v. Mariner Health, 946 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) reh den. (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) rev den. 956 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2007)

This was another appeal challenging the JCC’s decision to award a statutory fee on various constitutional grounds.  The First District followed its holdings in Wood, Lundy and Campbell and upheld the attorney fee award.  The Court also certified the same question to the Florida Supreme Court it had previously certified in other cases.

            On April 17, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled it would not consider the case as one of great public importance.  However, the Claimant had also requested the Court consider the case based upon the statute being found constitutional.  The Court requested jurisdictional briefs from the parties, and the in October 2007, the Court ultimately accepted jurisdiction.

            The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case on April 9, 2008, but has not yet released its decision. Speculation abounds on how the Court will rule and why. Its acceptance of the case was based on its discretionary jurisdiction to consider the facial validity of the statute. However, the constitutional arguments initially asserted by the Claimant’s bar, seemed to be waived at the oral arguments. However, the Court could also overturn the existing law on other grounds, with a more narrow focus and less sweeping immediate change. However, any decision that does not uphold current law will result in chaos and confusion to the system in the form of immediate exponential increases in litigation volume and claims costs. This will impact rates and costs immediately and will likely result in an emergency rate request filing from NCCI.

AIF and FIC jointly filed an amicus in this case and raised these 3 main points: