Last week, two federal courts of appeals–the 4th Circuit and D.C. Circuit–considered whether the IRS reasonably interpreted the Affordable Care Act as allowing the IRS to give tax credits to taxpayers that purchase health insurance through an exchange set up by the federal government. Both courts of appeals considered the same statutory text, the same
Florida’s acupuncture physicians and massage therapists recently learned that they are (again) ineligible to be paid PIP benefits for treating automobile accident victims. Chiropractors learned that PIP coverage of their services has (again) been curtailed as well. But the changes may be temporary.
They resulted from a loss suffered by acupuncture physicians, massage therapists, and …
People make mistakes. Even lawyers. Even judges. We are all human after all, and to be human is to be fallible. In the pressure-packed environment of a trial or hearing, the probability that a mistake will be made is even greater.
Part of the job of an appellate lawyer is to comb through the record …
In the past few years, the strangest things have started appearing in appellate decisions: images. That has been seen as so revolutionary that it has been widely covered in the legal press, with 7th Circuit opinions authored by Judge Richard Posner (as is often the case) drawing the most attention. The question is: why …
The 11th Circuit is back in full swing releasing opinions after a brief hiatus during the holiday season. Among the decisions handed down last week was Storcher v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company, a decision on insurance coverage under a home health care policy.
At issue was whether a policy covering “[v]isits by a …
It looks like I spoke too soon. Not long after I wrote that the 3rd DCA would not be offering its view on when auto insurers may take advantage of the 2008 amendments to Florida’s No Fault Law to limit personal injury protection reimbursements, declining to answer certified questions in U.S. Security Insurance Company v. …
I’d be surprised if any 2011 decision of Florida’s appellate courts has drawn more attention in legal, medical, and insurance professional circles than the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in May (covered in this post) in Kingsway Amigo Insurance Company v. Ocean Health Inc. In case you missed it (i.e. you …
The Florida Supreme Court returned from its summer hiatus last week with its first regular release of opinions since July 8, and sent this message: when the grandkids come to visit, don’t let them drive your car!
Among the new opinions released on Thursday, August 25, 2011 was State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. …
It’s hard to confuse the First District Court of Appeal of Florida (in Tallahassee) with its namesake in California. It’s even harder to confuse with that court’s San Francisco neighbor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The 9th Circuit has a reputation (deserved or not) for issuing controversial decisions on hot button issues – often to the displeasure of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 1st DCA (of Florida) has no such reputation. So some might be surprised by the outcome of two recent worker’ compensation appeals (the 1st DCA has jurisdiction over all workers’ compensation appeals). In recent weeks, the 1st DCA has handed down decisions in two separate cases affirming the right of immigrants working in the U.S. illegally to receive workers’ comp benefits.
In the first of those decisions, HDV Construction Systems, Inc. v. Aragon, No. 1D10–6401 (handed down on June 28, 2011), the 1st DCA held that an employer was on the hook for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits for an unauthorized worker because it knew or should have known that he could not work legally in the U.S., but continued to employ him anyway until he was permanently injured.
In the second, Garcia-Lopez v. Affordable Plumbing/Vinings Insurance Company, No. 1D10–4949 (issued on July 18, 2011), the 1st DCA required an employer to cover workers’ comp benefits for a Mexican immigrant (employed through a third party with knowledge of his status) who was underage in addition to lacking authorization to work in the U.S., rejecting the argument that he could only be compensated for lost income if he proved that he reported his income to the IRS.
What happened? Has the ideological outlook of San Francisco overtaken Tallahassee?! I don’t think so, as I’ll explain below.
Real electronic filing may finally make its way to Florida courts in the not-too-distant future. But before that happens, the Florida Supreme Court wants to make sure that there isn’t too much private information in court filings for the public to access.
On June 30, 2011, the Court adopted sweeping new rules about what information can and can’t be put in the court file. Florida litigators who want to avoid the sanctions that can be imposed for violating the new rules shouldn’t wait too long to become familiar with them — they are going into effect on October 1, 2011.
For the time being, the privacy rules don’t affect criminal cases, for the most part, but they affect all civil cases. And the reprieve in criminal cases isn’t likely to last very long.
Here is a breakdown of the Rule changes you need to know:
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425, which was added by the Court’s June 30, 2011 Amendments, contains the overarching principles. So if you learn that Rule (and remember to apply it in whatever context you find yourself) you’ll be most of the way there. But one caution: Rule 2.425 only states a default rule — it gives way to conflicting Rules, statutes, and orders.
This chart spells out the types of information that are subject to Rule 2.425:
Restricted Info: Can include in a filing? Exceptions:Child’s Name Initials only Orders re: time-sharing, parental responsibility, or child support. Any document re: child’s ownership of real property. Birthdates Year only Any party’s full birthdate in writ of attachment or notice to payor. Child’s full birthdate when
necessary for jurisdiction.
Social Sec. #s No General exceptions
Bank Account #s No General exceptions
Credit/Debit Card # No General exceptions
Charge Account # No General exceptions
Drivers License # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Passport # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Taxpayer ID # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Employee ID # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Phone # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Insurance Policy # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Loan # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Patient/health care # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Customer Accont # Last 4 digits only General exceptions Email address Truncated General exceptions User name Truncated General exceptions Password Truncated General exceptions PIN #s Truncated General exceptions
Other sensitive info: Truncated as per court order
- Statute, Rule or Order authorizes the inclusion of the information in a filing
- Account number is necessary to identify property at issue in a case.
- Information that is “relevant and material to an issue before the court.” [!!! This looks to me like an exception that you could drive a truck through. It’ll be interesting to see how courts interpret it.]
- Records in an administrative, agency, appellate, or review proceeding.
- Information used by the clerk or the court for file and case management purposes.
- Criminal cases are temporarily exempt.
- Traffic court cases are temporarily exempt.
- Small claims cases are temporarily exempt.
A Few Other Notes:
What effect does Rule 2.425 have on parties’ ability to obtain a protective order? According to the Rule itself, none. But I’d be surprised if judges’ opinions on what information should be kept private were not influenced by the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in Rule 2.425.
The Rule also claims that it “does not affect the application of constitutional provisions, statutes, or rules of court regarding confidential information or access to public information.” I’m not sure how that could be so, but again, we’ll see how courts interpret that subsection.
The Court is also amending quite a few other Rules to accomodate Rule 2.425. Changes are being made to the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly with regard to filing discovery documents, the Family Law Rules of Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Probate Rules, and to a lesser extent, Criminal Procedure and Small Claims Rules, as well as several forms.
The amendments to those rules and forms are listed below.