ADAN LUCIANO, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ADECCO/BROADSPIRE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this workers' compensation case, the court reversed an award of $8,421.07 in costs to the employer/carrier, finding that the judge of compensation claims abused her discretion by admitting hearsay testimony from the employer's attorney about the amount of costs without proper documentary foundation.
The court held that the judge abused her discretion in admitting the attorney's hearsay testimony. An attorney's testimony that merely repeats information from excluded documents without independent personal knowledge does not convert hearsay into non-hearsay, and such testimony cannot properly establish the amount of costs owed.
[1] A judge of compensation claims abuses discretion by admitting attorney testimony regarding costs when that testimony relies solely on excluded documents and lacks persona…
[2] Testimony repeating statements from excluded documents does not transform hearsay into non-hearsay.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Merely repeating a statement in the courtroom does not convert a hearsay statement into non-hearsay.”
Establishes the core legal principle that testimony based on excluded documents cannot circumvent hearsay rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer/carrier sought costs as a prevailing party in a workers' compensation case, including expenses for surveillance, labor market research, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding costs in the amount of $8,421.07 to the Employer/Carrier (E/C) as a prevailing party under section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes (2011). Claimant does not dispute that the E/C prevailed, but contests the amount, arguing that the JCC abused her discretion in refusing to strike as hearsay the E/C’s attorney’s testimony about the amount of the costs, and then in awarding costs based solely on that testimony (invoices and the E/C’s payout ledger were excluded, and their exclusion is not challenged by the E/C).
The specific costs awarded were related to surveillance, labor market research, and vocational expert services. Claimant had objected to, inter alia, the taxability of the costs, their reasonableness, and their necessity in relation to the claims on which the E/C had prevailed. The E/C’s attorney offered testimony in order to establish that “those amounts have been paid as reflected in the payout ledger,” a document created by his client, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, to show its costs. But on cross-examination he admitted that he knew the payments were made only because they were “reflected as being paid in the payout ledger” and because his firm had not received follow-up correspondence or bills indicating outstanding amounts owed.
We agree that the JCC abused her discretion in admitting the attorney’s testimony over Claimant’s hearsay objection. The testifying attorney’s knowledge as to the amount of costs was taken directly from the excluded documents — but the problem with his testimony is not the fact of the documents’ exclusion, but rather his complete reliance on those documents.1 “Merely repeating a statement in the courtroom does not convert a hearsay statement into non-hearsay.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 801.2 (2015 ed.) (citing Pierre-Charles v. State, 67 So.3d 301, 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)).
REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order in accord with this opinion.
ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., eoncur.