IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICHARD S. BIEBER, Petitioner, v. TOM WINNER GLASS CO. INC. and BRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. ______________________________/ Opinion filed May 12, 2008. Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction. Donald Van Dingenen and Charles W. Smith of Van Dingenen, P.A., Winter Park, for Petitioner. David W. Sackman, III, of Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A., Orlando, for Respondents. Walter J. Havers of Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, for Judge of Compensation Claims Paul T. Terlizzese. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. CASE NO. 1D08-0532
PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits. LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., CONCUR; BROWNING, C.J., DISSENTS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.
BROWNING, C.J., dissenting. I would grant the writ of prohibition. It seems to me that the motion to disqualify the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) is facially sufficient. The adversarial relationship that has developed between claimant’s attorney and the JCC, while unfortunate, gives the claimant ample reason to fear not receiving an impartial ruling from the JCC. The majority opinion “saddles” the claimant with the antithesis of what a litigant should receive: a fair hearing free from substantial doubt concerning a JCC’s motivation when deciding an issue. The claimant deserves better here, and I, accordingly, dissent.