HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-93-0120J-93-120
2/8/93
RESOLUTION NO. 9 3 - 120
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN
COMPENSATION TO ARTHUR J. ENGLAND, JR. OF THE
LAW FIRM OF GREENBERG, TRAURIG, HOFFMAN,
LIPOFF, ROSEN & QUENTEL, P.A. TO SERVE AS CO
COUNSEL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CASES OF CITY OF MIAMI V.
BELL, CASE #80,524; CITY OF MIAMI v.
AROSTEGUI, CASE #80,560; CITY OF MIAMI V.
McLEAIN, CASE #80,575; CITY OF MIAMI v. MEYER,
CASE #60,652; CITY OF MIAMI v. FAIR, CASE
#80,728; CITY OF MIAMI v. THOMAS, CASE
#80,683;' CITY OF MIAMI v. HICKEY, CASE
#80,981; CITY OF MIAMI V. KING, CASE #80,999;
CITY OF MIAMI v. LEIBNITZER, CASE #80,998;
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FOR SAID SERVICES
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $70,000.00 FROM
THE CITY OF MIAMI SELF-INSURANCE AND
INSURANCE TRUST FUND.
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Florida declared invalid the
City's pension offset provisions, presently codified at
Sections 40-212(N) and 40-230(N) of the Code of the City of
Miami, Florida, as amended, in the case of Barragan v. City of
Miami, 545 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1989); and
WHEREAS, said decision overruled numerous appellate
decisions which expressly upheld the City's right to continue to
take the offset after the 1973 statutory repeal of Section
440.09(4), Fla. Stat.; and
CITY COMUSSION
MEETING OF
FEB 0 9 W3
RewAu6w No.
93- 120
WHEREAS, as a result of the Barragan decision, the City
stopped taking the offset from the service connected disability
pensions as of August 1, 1989; and
WHEREASf also as a result of the Barragan decision, numerous
Iformer employees, who were collecting permanent total disability
benefits and service connected disability pensions, filed claims
.in the workers' compensation tribunal seeking retroactive pension
offset benefits, interest, penalties, costs and attorney's fees;
and
WHEREAS, the Judges of Compensation Claims ordered the City
i
to pay the retroactive pension offset benefits, interest,
penalties, costs and attorney's fees and the City appealed said
—i
adverse decisions to the First District Court of Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal ruled against
the City in cases where the former employee suffered a
compensable accident on or after July 1, 1973 in the case of City
of Miami v. Burnett; and
-:$ WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal denied the
City's motions for rehearing, certification or clarification and
— _ for rehearing en banc; and
S WHEREAS, the Commission of the City of Miami, pursuant to
# Resolution No. 92-338, previously approved the City Attorney's
engagement of Arthur J. England, Jr. of the law firm of Fine
-_ Jacobson Schwartz Nash Block & England to serve as co -counsel
before the Supreme Court of the State of Florida in connection
3
with the case of City of Miami v. Burnett, Case #79,925 in an
amount not to exceed $10,000.00; and
-2-
93- 120
r �r
WHSREAS, the First District Court of Appeal subsequently
issued decisions adverse to the City in nine (9) other casesi
CITY OF MIAMI v. BELL, CASE #90,524; CITY OF MIAMI v. AROSTEGUI,
CASE #80,560; CITY OF MIAMI v. McLEAN, CASE #80,575; CITY OF
MIAMI v. MEYER, CASE #80,652; CITY OF MIAMI v. FAIR, ChSE
#90,728; CITY OF MIAMI v. THOMAS, CASE #80,683; CITY OF MIAMI v.
HICKEY, CASE #80,981; CITY OF MIAMI v. KING, CASE 480,999; CITY
' OF MIAMI v. LEIBNITSER, CASE #80,998; however, unlike the Burnett
decision, the First District Court of Appeal issued certified
questions pertaining to the award of penalties under the
circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered the City to
file briefs on the merits in the above nine (9) cases, but denied
the City's early attempt to consolidate some of these cases; and
WHEREAS, there are five (5) other cases presently pending in
► the First District Court of Appeal where the former employee
suffered a compensable accident on or after July 1, 1973; and
WHEREAS, the City's liability, if the First District Court
of Appeal's adverse rulings are allowed to stand, is
approximately $5 to $6 million; and
WHEREAS, Arthur J. England, Jr. is presently engaged in the
practice of law with the law firm of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman,
i
Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PiIAX14, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference
-3- 93- 120
Is
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. An increase in compensation, in an amount not
to exceed $70,000, is hereby authorized to Arthur J. England, Jr.
of the law firm of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen &
Quentel, P.A. to serve as co -counsel before the Supreme Court of
the State of Florida for services rendered in connection with the
following nine (9) cases: CITY OF MIAMI v. BELL, CASE #80,524;
CITY OF MIAMI v. AROSTEGUI, CASE #i80,560; CITY OF MIAMI v.
McLEAN, CASE #80,575; CITY OF MIAMI v. MEYER, CASE #80,652; CITY
OF MIAMI v. FAIR, CASE #80,728; CITY OF MIAMI v. THOMAS, CASE
#80,683; CITY OF MIAMI v. HICKEY, CASE #80,981; CITY OF MIAMI v.
KING, CASE #80,999; CITY OF MIAMI v. LEIBNITZER, CASE #80,998,
with said funds therefor hereby allocated from the City of Miami
Self -Insurance and Insurance Trust Fund.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of u Y<'� 1993.
ATT o
lz-4_�_
NATTY HIRAI
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
KATHRYIr S. PECKO•
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
-4-
XAVIER . SUAREZ, MAYOR
C
93- 120
RISK MANAGENT REVIEW:
RISK
S . C►.BR14, D
REVIEW:
NANONAR URANOI/
ASSISTANT TY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
PAS
A Q S� I
CITY ATT Y
M3433/KSP/lb/bss
93- 120