Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edward MILLER, Appellant, v. BELL SOUTH PHONE COMPANY & Kemper National Services, Appellees.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Edward Miller, claimant below, appeals a final order denying compensability of his claim. Claimant argues that, because the final order was entered after the judge of compensation claims (JCC) reversed an earlier order recusing herself and reasserted control over the case, the order denying compensation is void and without effect. We agree and reverse.
Florida law is clear that once a judge recuses himself or herself for whatever reason, the judge may not thereafter reconsider the recusal decision and reassert judicial authority over the case. Deberry v. Ward, 625 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In Deberry, as here, the judge reinstated himself on rehearing, noting that he had made a mistake by granting the motion to disqualify. “A judge may not reconsider his decision to disqualify.” Id. at 993 (citing State v. Schack, 617 So.2d 832, 833-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)); accord Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(“once a trial judge disqualifies himself, he may not ‘requalify’ himself on removal of the reason for disqualification.”).
The JCC's order denying compensability must be reversed as void and without effect because the JCC, having previously recused herself, was without jurisdiction to enter an order on the merits of the case. Davis v. State, 849 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Meaweather v. State, 732 So.2d 499, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, this cause is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that this case be reassigned to another judge of compensation claims.
VAN NORTWICK, J.
PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 1D02-4074.
Decided: December 08, 2003
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)