JUDGE WATSON'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OMNIBUS ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS DATED DECEMBER 20, 2013

Transcription

1 Filing # Electronically Filed 01/06/ :45:52 AM RECEIVED, 1/6/ :48:40, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No SC l LAURA M. WATSON JUDGE WATSON'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OMNIBUS ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS DATED DECEMBER 20, 2013 Pursuant to the Chair's December 20, 2013 Omnibus Order on Pending Motions, Judge Watson discloses the following character witnesses: 1. The Honorable Thomas M. Lynch, IV. 201 SE 6'" Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL John P. Seiler, Esq. Seiler, Sauter, Zaden, Rimes 2850 N. Andrews Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL Terrance O'Connor, Esq. Morgan Carratt and O'Connor 111 SE 12th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

2 Contrary to the procedure generally followed at a case management hearing, instead of requiring the Petitioner/ JQC to list its expert witnesses first and then allow the Respondent/ Judge Watson additional time to list her experts, the Chair reversed this procedure and ordered Judge Watson to first list her experts. Judge Watson objects to this procedure and requests additional time to list additional experts in the subject matter of any experts listed by the JQC to the extent that their testimony addresses a different subject matter from the expert below: Lawrence Kopelman, Esq. 200 SW 1" Avenue, 12* Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL larry@kopelblank.com Mr. Kopelman has extensive experience in representing litigants in causes of action similar to the PIP cases that were handled by the firm of Laura M. Watson, P.A. He is familiar with the nature and extent of work performed by the Watson firm and the responsibility of the claimants' attorney in the prosecution of personal injury protection benefits cases and had extensive experience in class action suits and other complex litigation. Furthermore, he has examined many of the files handled by the Watson firm and testified in numerous fee hearings regarding the issues related to the proceedings and the services rendered by Laura M. Watson, P.A. The Watson firm each began specializing in the representation of health care providers in PIP insurance claims by the late 1990s. That was long before the practice of PIP law became the crowded field it has since become. Laura Watson and the lawyers were pioneers in their own right, having been involved in significant judicial decisions and legislative developments over the years. The 2

3 Watson firm discovered that Progressive and other PIP carriers were improperly reducing PIP benefits using various methodologies, including the improper use of preferred provider organizations (PPOs). The contract that the client had with Judge Watson's law firm provided that if the suit was successful, the client would recover the unpaid benefits and interest and the lawyers would recover the legal fees and costs. Often times the sum being sought was less than $ Progressive aggressively defended PIP suits brought by the health care providers. As a practical matter, if the client had to advance the legal fees and costs to recover the benefits, they would not have done so. The Watson firm assumed the risk on the client's behalf and agreed to perform as much work and expend whatever time was necessary. Eventually the health care providers prevailed and recovered the unpaid PIP benefits plus interest and the Watson firm recovered cost and attorney's fees from the insurance company. Mr. Kopelman has reviewed numerous files and of the files he has reviewed he found that the average recovery per file at the time of the settlement with Progressive Insurance Company was roughly $10, and that a multiplier was appropriate for many of the files. Mr. Kopelman finds that at the time of this litigation, $ per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for Laura M. Watson and that the other attorneys in her firm were entitled to be awarded $ per hour for their services in this type of litigation. The work that the Watson firm completed was reasonable and necessary to get the client paid. Each of the Watson firm clients received 100% benefits plus interest which is what they were entitled to under the contract. Multiplier of is appropriate Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court, the number one factor in determining whether a multiplier should be applied is whether or not the relevant market requires a contingent fee multiplier for the Plaintiff to obtain competent counsel. Quanstrom v. Standard Insurance, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990). The relevant market means this case and this client. A contingent fee with the 3

4 possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community. Most of these cases presented the complex and novel issue of the whether or not an insurer can legally reduce a healthcare providers medical bills based upon a PPO contract without selling the insured a PPO policy and passing the discounts to the insured. Because several major insurers including Progressive and Allstate, had taken the position that they could legally take these discounts and not pay the full amount due for these type of charges, it was unlikely that these cases would settle. Not only did this create a financial crisis for the provider/clients who were not getting paid for their services, but this creates a crisis to the National Program of insurance wherein the insurance company selectively removes treatment to their insureds. This issue is greatly important to both providers and consumers and this issue had far reaching implications. Further, a contingent fee with the possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community. Most of the healthcare providers were unable to obtain any counsel to represent them in 2000 and 2001 when these cases began. These cases also presented the complex and novel issue of the constitutionality of the arbitration provision of F.S (5). Laura M. Watson, P.A. was unable to mitigate the risk of non-payment and instead was placed in a position to invest large sums of money to file these PPO claims and take on insurers and adequately represent their clients. Laura M. Watson, P.A. had a pure written contingency fee contract with their clients. Though it is referred to as a pure contingency fee, the lawyers and the clients do not share in the recovery of the benefits and interest. The Watson firm recovered 100% of the outstanding benefits and interest for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case. The fact that these cases settled is directly related to Laura Watson's extensive experience and ability as an attorney. Laura Watson is highly regarded for her skill and reputation in this area of the law at both the trial and appellate levels. Lastly, Quanstrom requires the court to look at the Rowe factors. These cases meet numerous factors. Specifically, the time and labor required to prevail in this litigation was extensive. This was a novel and extremely difficult case, requiring a high level of skill necessary to perform the legal service properly. The P.A. recovered 100% of the outstanding benefits for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case. 4

5 I do not believe these cases settled because of Larry Stewart's involvement with the bad faith case. The PIP cases handled by the Watson firm had a great deal of value. At the time of the settlement in issue in this case, the Watson firm had numerous outstanding final judgments for fees and costs which had not been paid, and had fifty-three fee hearings pending. People are not outraged by a computer program used to derive what insurers call reasonable values particularly when they inject how medical providers are causmg msurance rates to go up by overutilization and other abuses. Insurance companies are interested in taking thousands of cases and shutting them down due to the attorney's fees. Mr. Kopelman does not believe that punitive damages would be awarded in this case. There is no outrage, no reprehensibility, not even a proven violation of the law. It was not even clear at the time of the settlement if the courts were going to allow these type of reductions without selling the appropriate policy and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the insurers did not violate the law by taking these PPO reductions without selling a PPO policy. Even if you could convince a jury that punitive damages were appropriate, State Farm v. Campbell would prevent a major punitive damage claim from being upheld on appeal. Larry Stewart was trying to turn a PIP bad faith case into a quasi-class action which is not permitted under the statute. His idea of adding more and more plaintiffs created a scenario that was unmanageable. Respectfully submitted, The Honorable Laura M. Watson Circuit Judge, 17* Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tel.: (954) jwatson@l 7th.ficourts.org /s/ Laura M. Watson LAURA M. WATSON Florida Bar No.:

6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by to: Miles A. McGrane, III, Esq. miles@mcgranelaw.com lisa@mcaranelaw.com The McGrane Law Firm, Special Counsel, One Datran Center, Ste. 1500, 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Miami, Florida ; Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq. RossGirten@Laurilaw.com Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC, Ste. 1612, 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Miami, Florida ; Michael L. Schneider, Esq. mschneider@floridaiqc.com General Counsel, 1110 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32303, Robert A. Sweetapple, Pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com,Co-counsel for Judge Watson, 165 East Boca Raton Road, Boca Raton, Florida , this 6th day of January Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by to: The Honorable Kerry I. Evander, evanderk@ficourts.org, Chair of the JQC, 300 S. Beach Street, Daytona Beach, FL /s/ Laura M. Watson LAURA M. WATSON 6