Your study is worthless. With that many variables you cannot draw conclusions as to the effect of any one provision. It takes several years or more for attorney’s who are dedicated to helping people to “give up” in the face of draconian law changes and realize that they shouldn’t take these cases because all that is happening is the attorney is subsidizing the justice they are trying to preserve and they cannot materially help their clients anyway. Lawyers who specialize in these kinds of cases won’t stop doing them overnight, but eventually the insurance and business lobby will drive lawyers from the field leaving the injured workers helpless. Be patient. It will happen as it has in other states where lawyers can now afford only to take the largest injuries.
Dean, you must be working with all the good lawyers and never had to deal with the lazy scum that make up a large percentage of the legal profession.
I owned a large company with several thousand employees and as a result I saw many a case ‘go legal’ prior to the 2003 reforms.
Some lawyers were good people who were interested in helping their clients get a fair shake. Those cases were easy to settle and the costs were in line.
Most were income driven lawsuit mills whose actions more often then not left their clients in worse shape.
Remember that WC is supposed to be a trade off, guaranteed but limited payments to injured workers, but in a ‘no fault’ quick and lawyer free environment.
Several time I was able to settle cases for far less then they were worth because the lawyer on the other side wanted a lump sum settlement so he could earn a quick fee. Other times cases involving complicated issues (say an exception to the going and coming rule but with an OCIP involved) I saw lawyers simply file the claim and pursue it off and on for years looking for that settlement, but never actually helping their client.
Until the legal community really pushes to police its member’s greed and laziness, then you can expect more limitations on their actions and especially their reimbursement.
are not limited to plantiff attornies. They also sometimes own businesses, are elected officials, file claims, or manage insurance carriers; hence the need for an effective adjudication process.
In the case that the Supreme Court initially ruled on, the injured worker settled for approx. $3,500, but the attorney’s fees, on an hourly basis, were on the order of $75,000!
The court ruled that the law had been improperly worded thus the cap on fees did not apply, they did not rule that the attorney was justified in charging those fees.
Thank you temblor.
The rest of you might want to actually read the decision and the WCRI report before criticizing. I’m sure your quick jump to conclusions is no match for the rigorous vetting & regression analysis the WCRI did.
What Boca Condo King says has some merit, however, penalizing the innocent is never the answer. Moreover, when you suppress someone from justice they have to scream to be heard. That is what has happened in Work Comp across the country. If an employee is treated with fairness and respect and given a sense of security instead of with suspicion and oppression in an atmosphere of fear all but the fewest numbers of exaggerated, claims disappear. Workers are honest (all but a very few, of course as in any group). When someone pushes unreasonably hard against you , you will always respond in kind (i.e., “what the h*ll do you mean your doctor says I’m not hurt. I’ll show you I’m hurt!!!” – and off we go, unfairness begetting unfairness). Honest Claimants lawyers trying to be honest who face limitations on their fees while the defense has none. Claimants using their treating doctors while the defense “hires” expert medical witnesses (who invariably and to no one’s surprise never agree with the treating doctor’s assessment of his/her own patient).
Yes there are problems in this system and most of them are caused by the oppression of honest working men and women by insurance and business and the defense side of the law.
That being said, I cannot argue against the proposition that some claimants lawyers act more in their own interests than that of their clients in taking lump sums. I’ve never heard of a client however (especially one who is injured, in debt, scared of the future, and who has just come through a WC case where he/she has been treated like a dishonest scumbag), telling their lawyer “Don’t get me a lump sum. I’d like to stay involved with this company for years to come”. Dean Nasser
1. The Fl Supreme Court ruled that the law as originally written was flawed so granted over $75,000 in hourly fees for a $3,500 case. They did NOT rule on whether or not the hourly fees were fair compensation for the work the attorney did. It was clearly a case that was set up for testing the law, and not just a random case. I defy anyone to explain how an attorney could spend that amount of time and effort on a small claim. Granted the claim was originally declined, and he did get it reinstated, but $75,000?
2. Since the original law was passed, amounts paid to attorneys have dropped so drastically that WC rates have decreased by over 50%.
3. Since the law was passed late night TV ads from WC attorneys have disappeared, a wonderful blessing.
4. Since the entire process involves human beings on both sides, it will always be a flawed system.
That’s one of the reasons it’s supposed to be a no fault system – injured on the job? Here’s what you get. it’s not supposed to be a tort system, and it definitely is not supposed to make attorneys rich by paying them for unlimited hours (and only their word for how much time they actually spent)on easily settled cases.
But, insurance companies, who need to make a profit in order to stay in business, lose money if they unjustly fight a case too hard, because of the cost of the involvement of their own attorneys and medical experts plus what they have to pay the plaintiff attorneys.
Some cases will always involve compromises that make no one happy.
5. The fact that attorneys are still involved in almost as many cases as before the law, and that rates have dropped so drastically as a result of the law, pretty much proves that something was pretty much out of whack before the law and badly needed fixing.
6. Before the law Florida had some of the highest WC rates in the nation. Could Florida be that dangerous a place to work? How much did safety improve after the law to so reduce the rates, or was it the limitations on lawyers billing?
7. We should never forget, WC laws were passed to provide an injured worker a cushion while they recover from their injuries, not to make lawyers rich.
Sorry, that is NOT what the insurance co. spent defending the claim. That is what the claimant’s attorney claimed he was due, at an hourly rate, for the $3,500 claim. It has never been disclosed what the insurance company spent resisting the claim.
The insurance company resisted the claim because, they said, the injury did not happen on the job.
The better WC insurers in Florida will resist what they feel is an uncovered or fraudulent claim without regard to the cost. That is why I prefer placing my clients with them, the attorneys generally don’t want to mess with cos. they know will resist phony claims. That keeps my clients rates down (well, their experience mod.).
I believe the reason the attorney claimed so much is the trial lawyers were looking for the “perfect” test case, and he delivered it for them.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Well said Hawkwelter
Your study is worthless. With that many variables you cannot draw conclusions as to the effect of any one provision. It takes several years or more for attorney’s who are dedicated to helping people to “give up” in the face of draconian law changes and realize that they shouldn’t take these cases because all that is happening is the attorney is subsidizing the justice they are trying to preserve and they cannot materially help their clients anyway. Lawyers who specialize in these kinds of cases won’t stop doing them overnight, but eventually the insurance and business lobby will drive lawyers from the field leaving the injured workers helpless. Be patient. It will happen as it has in other states where lawyers can now afford only to take the largest injuries.
Dean, you must be working with all the good lawyers and never had to deal with the lazy scum that make up a large percentage of the legal profession.
I owned a large company with several thousand employees and as a result I saw many a case ‘go legal’ prior to the 2003 reforms.
Some lawyers were good people who were interested in helping their clients get a fair shake. Those cases were easy to settle and the costs were in line.
Most were income driven lawsuit mills whose actions more often then not left their clients in worse shape.
Remember that WC is supposed to be a trade off, guaranteed but limited payments to injured workers, but in a ‘no fault’ quick and lawyer free environment.
Several time I was able to settle cases for far less then they were worth because the lawyer on the other side wanted a lump sum settlement so he could earn a quick fee. Other times cases involving complicated issues (say an exception to the going and coming rule but with an OCIP involved) I saw lawyers simply file the claim and pursue it off and on for years looking for that settlement, but never actually helping their client.
Until the legal community really pushes to police its member’s greed and laziness, then you can expect more limitations on their actions and especially their reimbursement.
are not limited to plantiff attornies. They also sometimes own businesses, are elected officials, file claims, or manage insurance carriers; hence the need for an effective adjudication process.
In the case that the Supreme Court initially ruled on, the injured worker settled for approx. $3,500, but the attorney’s fees, on an hourly basis, were on the order of $75,000!
The court ruled that the law had been improperly worded thus the cap on fees did not apply, they did not rule that the attorney was justified in charging those fees.
Thank you temblor.
The rest of you might want to actually read the decision and the WCRI report before criticizing. I’m sure your quick jump to conclusions is no match for the rigorous vetting & regression analysis the WCRI did.
What Boca Condo King says has some merit, however, penalizing the innocent is never the answer. Moreover, when you suppress someone from justice they have to scream to be heard. That is what has happened in Work Comp across the country. If an employee is treated with fairness and respect and given a sense of security instead of with suspicion and oppression in an atmosphere of fear all but the fewest numbers of exaggerated, claims disappear. Workers are honest (all but a very few, of course as in any group). When someone pushes unreasonably hard against you , you will always respond in kind (i.e., “what the h*ll do you mean your doctor says I’m not hurt. I’ll show you I’m hurt!!!” – and off we go, unfairness begetting unfairness). Honest Claimants lawyers trying to be honest who face limitations on their fees while the defense has none. Claimants using their treating doctors while the defense “hires” expert medical witnesses (who invariably and to no one’s surprise never agree with the treating doctor’s assessment of his/her own patient).
Yes there are problems in this system and most of them are caused by the oppression of honest working men and women by insurance and business and the defense side of the law.
That being said, I cannot argue against the proposition that some claimants lawyers act more in their own interests than that of their clients in taking lump sums. I’ve never heard of a client however (especially one who is injured, in debt, scared of the future, and who has just come through a WC case where he/she has been treated like a dishonest scumbag), telling their lawyer “Don’t get me a lump sum. I’d like to stay involved with this company for years to come”. Dean Nasser
1. The Fl Supreme Court ruled that the law as originally written was flawed so granted over $75,000 in hourly fees for a $3,500 case. They did NOT rule on whether or not the hourly fees were fair compensation for the work the attorney did. It was clearly a case that was set up for testing the law, and not just a random case. I defy anyone to explain how an attorney could spend that amount of time and effort on a small claim. Granted the claim was originally declined, and he did get it reinstated, but $75,000?
2. Since the original law was passed, amounts paid to attorneys have dropped so drastically that WC rates have decreased by over 50%.
3. Since the law was passed late night TV ads from WC attorneys have disappeared, a wonderful blessing.
4. Since the entire process involves human beings on both sides, it will always be a flawed system.
That’s one of the reasons it’s supposed to be a no fault system – injured on the job? Here’s what you get. it’s not supposed to be a tort system, and it definitely is not supposed to make attorneys rich by paying them for unlimited hours (and only their word for how much time they actually spent)on easily settled cases.
But, insurance companies, who need to make a profit in order to stay in business, lose money if they unjustly fight a case too hard, because of the cost of the involvement of their own attorneys and medical experts plus what they have to pay the plaintiff attorneys.
Some cases will always involve compromises that make no one happy.
5. The fact that attorneys are still involved in almost as many cases as before the law, and that rates have dropped so drastically as a result of the law, pretty much proves that something was pretty much out of whack before the law and badly needed fixing.
6. Before the law Florida had some of the highest WC rates in the nation. Could Florida be that dangerous a place to work? How much did safety improve after the law to so reduce the rates, or was it the limitations on lawyers billing?
7. We should never forget, WC laws were passed to provide an injured worker a cushion while they recover from their injuries, not to make lawyers rich.
Sorry, that is NOT what the insurance co. spent defending the claim. That is what the claimant’s attorney claimed he was due, at an hourly rate, for the $3,500 claim. It has never been disclosed what the insurance company spent resisting the claim.
The insurance company resisted the claim because, they said, the injury did not happen on the job.
The better WC insurers in Florida will resist what they feel is an uncovered or fraudulent claim without regard to the cost. That is why I prefer placing my clients with them, the attorneys generally don’t want to mess with cos. they know will resist phony claims. That keeps my clients rates down (well, their experience mod.).
I believe the reason the attorney claimed so much is the trial lawyers were looking for the “perfect” test case, and he delivered it for them.
Gee, Tony, you didn’t have to post it 4 times!