UPDATED THROUGH May 16, 2016
UPDATED THROUGH May 16, 2016
UPDATED THROUGH May 16, 2016
UPDATED THROUGH March 10, 2017
Non-Compete Covenants – Referral Sources. Certified Conflict: Are referral sources for patients in the health care industry “legitimate business interests” protectable by employers through non-compete covenants pursuant to section 542.335, Florida Statutes? Americare Home Therapy, Inc. v. Hiles, No. SC16-400 (review granted July 8, 2016). DCA decision: 183 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 31, 2015). Status: decision pending; Oral Argument Video (Mar. 9, 2017); briefing complete (Oct. 24, 2016); consolidated with SC16-28
Non-Compete Covenants – Referral Sources. Certified Conflict: Are referral sources for patients in the health care industry “legitimate business interests” protectable by employers through non-compete covenants pursuant to section 542.335, Florida Statutes? White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Southeast Fla., LLC, No. SC16-28 (review granted July 8, 2016). DCA decision: 179 So. 3d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 2, 2015). Status: decision pending; Oral Argument Video (Mar. 9, 2017); briefing complete (Nov. 22, 2016); consolidated with SC16-400.
Union – Collective Bargaining. The Court found that the interpretation of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) and the First District would allow a local government, once it has declared a financial urgency, the ability to exercise a management right to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of a contract before completing the procedures set forth by the Legislature in section 447.4095. This interpretation does not comport with our acknowledgment of and respect for the constitutional right of collective bargaining and prohibition of the impairment to contract. Headley v. City of Miami, Fla., No. SC13-1882 (review granted Aug. 28, 2014). DCA decision: 118 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA June 19, 2013). Status: decided; Slip Opinion (Mar. 2, 2017); Oral Argument Video (Apr. 7, 2015); briefing complete (Jan. 22, 2015).
UPDATED THROUGH March 30, 2017
Proposal for Settlement – Time for Rejection. Conflict Certified: Does the filing of a motion to enlarge the time to accept a proposal for settlement toll the 30-day period provided for in Rule 1.442(f)(1) for accepting a proposal? Koppel v. Ochoa, No. SC16-1474 (review granted Nov. 9, 2016). DCA decision: 197 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA May 20, 2016). Status: briefing; no oral argument.
Medical Malpractice – Presuit Requirements. [1] Is a trial court’s determination that a plaintiffs’ corroborating presuit expert does not meet the statutory requirements reviewed for an abuse of discretion or under a de novo standard of review? [2] In analyzing purported presuit discovery violations, is an appellate court required to consider either the prejudice to the defendants or the factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1993)? Morris v. Muniz, No. SC16-931 (review granted Jan. 19, 2017). DCA decision: 189 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 27, 2016). Status: briefing; no oral argument.
Equitable Subrogation – Subsequent Tortfeasor. Certified Question: Is a party that has had judgment entered against it entitled to seek equitable subrogation from a subsequent tortfeasor when the judgment has not been fully satisfied? Holmes Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. SC15-1555 (review granted June 10, 2016). DCA decision: 171 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA July 24, 2015). Status: decision pending; briefing complete (Nov. 7, 2016); no oral argument.
Litigation Privilege – Malicious Prosecution. Conflict Certified: The Court held that the litigation privilege does not bar the filing of a claim for malicious prosecution based upon the act of adding a party defendant to a civil suit. Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SC15-1477 (review granted Oct. 5, 2015). DCA decision: 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA July 15, 2015). Status: motion for rehearing pending (Mar. 16, 2017); decided (Feb. 9, 2017); Slip Opinion; Oral Argument Video (Aug. 31, 2016); briefing complete (Mar. 24, 2016).
For further treatment of this case, please click here.
Discovery – Law Firm/Physician Referral Information. Conflict Certified: Is the disclosure of an attorney’s referral of a client to a healthcare provider protected by the attorney-client privilege and therefore not discoverable from the attorney even when the information is unsuccessfully sought from the party, the treating doctor and other witnesses? Worley v. Central Fla. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, No. SC15-1086 (review granted Sept. 1, 2015). DCA decision: 163 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA May 15, 2015). Status: decision pending; Oral Argument Video (Nov. 3, 2016); briefing complete (Feb. 10, 2016).
For further treatment of this case, please click here.
UPDATED AS OF March 30, 2015
There are no cases to report on at this time.
UPDATED THROUGH March 10, 2017
57.105 Fees – Actions Under § 784.046. Conflict Certified: Is an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 57.105 allowed in an action under § 784.046 [injunction for protection against violence]? Lopez v. Hall, No. SC16-1921 (review granted Jan. 23, 2017). DCA decision: No. 1D15-0531, 2016 WL4036093 (Fla. 1st DCA July 28, 2016). Status: briefing; oral argument to be scheduled at a later date.
Proposal for Settlement – Time for Rejection. Conflict Certified: Does the filing of a motion to enlarge the time to accept a proposal for settlement toll the 30-day period provided for in Rule 1.442(f)(1) for accepting a proposal? Koppel v. Ochoa, No. SC16-1474 (review granted Nov. 9, 2016). DCA decision: 197 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA May 20, 2016). Status: briefing; no oral argument.
Attorneys’ Fees – Insurance Coverage. Certified Conflict: Are attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to a proposal for settlement considered “costs” within the “Additional Payments” provision of an insurance policy that covers “All reasonable costs incurred by an insured at our request.” GEICO v. Macedo, No. SC16-935 (review granted Oct. 19, 2016). DCA decision: 190 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA May 6, 2016). Status: decision pending; briefing complete (Jan. 24, 2017); no oral argument.
Attorney’s Fees – Multipliers. Is a contingency fee multiplier for an award of attorney’s fees only allowed in rare and exceptional circumstances? Joyce v. Federated Nat’l Ins. Co., No. SC16-103 (review granted Aug. 12, 2016). DCA decision: 179 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 20, 2015). Status: decision pending; briefing complete (Nov. 7, 2016); no oral argument.
UPDATED THROUGH March 30, 2017
UPDATED THROUGH June 22, 2015
What sets Sedgwick’s Appellate Group apart from the rest.
Most appellate lawyers are passive: they read the trial record (viewing it as etched in stone, immutable). They research the law. They write the brief. They may be good at that, but they use a static, one-dimensional approach to what should be a creative, strategic process: have a plan, adjust it when necessary. Look for new approaches, a new way to frame the issue, what will set your case apart. Appellate Strategists will look for creative, proactive ways to solve the problem.
Say an institutional client walks in with an adverse published opinion. It affects the client in all manner of other lawsuits. Most appellate lawyers will seek review in the State’s highest court, and perhaps file a certiorari petition in the U.S. Supreme Court. If turned down, they view the battle as over. But as the song says, that ain’t necessarily so.
Examples:
A. What An Appeal Can – And Can’t – Do. An appeal is a powerful, often underestimated, line of defense. It’s an opportunity to reduce the award, obtain a complete or partial new trial, or perhaps even reverse misfortune, getting judgment awarded in favor of the party who lost at trial.
However, the appeal is not an opportunity to retry the case. Appellate courts don’t reweigh evidence, fact findings or witness credibility. They look for prejudicial legal error – error that deprived the losing party of a fair trial. With some exceptions, issues and arguments not raised or waived in the trial court usually will not be available to attack a verdict on appeal.
B. Potential Arguments. The appeal may challenge the judgment in a variety of ways, depending on the case, e.g.:
C. Possible Outcomes On Appeal. The type of appellate argument raised controls the potential result. For example:
D. Strategic Considerations On Appeal.
Obtaining a new trial. This can be a mixed blessing. Certainly things go back to square one, but the defendant again faces the risk of an adverse judgment, perhaps even a larger one.
Could there be a a published opinion? Defendants contemplating appeal should also consider the possibility of a published appellate court opinion. Could this help, or harm, its position in other cases? Though unpublished decisions have no value as precedent in many jurisdictions, other courts could treat them as having binding collateral estoppel or res judicata effect. An unfavorable published – or even unpublished – opinion may alert other potential plaintiffs and spur them into legal action.
Economic costs.
E. Why An Appellate Specialist?
The defense lawyer, who’s lived the case, is intimately familiar with every detail. That very strength can be a weakness on appeal. The reviewing court, seeing the case for the first time, lacks this microscopic mastery of the details, and considers only matters in the record and preserved (or not waived) below.
An appellate specialist brings not only expertise in the procedural complexities of post-trial and appellate practice, but objectivity to evaluating whether to appeal, what issues to raise and how to frame them. They speak the court of appeal’s language, a language very different from the lower court. One looks for legal error and significant legal issues. The other applies the law to resolve disputed fact questions. A seasoned appellate practitioner knows the difference, the court’s history, background and predelictions. They are specially trained in legal analysis. Persuasive, cogent, organized writing is their metier.
“[T]rial attorneys who prosecute their own appeals . . . may have `tunnel vision.’ Having tried the case themselves, they have become convinced of the merits of the claim. They may lose objectivity and would be well served by consulting and taking the advice of disinterested members of the bar, schooled in appellate practice.” Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1449-1450.
Experienced, savvy appellate counsel are valuable not only on appeal, but during, and even before, trial or judgment. Their creative legal thinking may help to identify new issues or new approaches to old ones, draft dispositive motions, review and edit trial briefs, provide creative ideas about new jury instructions, and help preserve the record for appeal.