Who are you, Who, Who, Who Who?

The Clerk's office received a request recently from one of our District Offices. Essentially, the District had received an email from one attorney on a case asking that the carrier on that case be changed to another carrier. From the law firm paralegal involved, we received by email "Please note that the correct Carrier for this case is York Risk Services Group, 605 Crescent Executed Court, Ste. 300, Lake Mary, FL 32746.  Thank you."

So here, as Paul Harvey was so fond of telling us, is "The rest of the story . . .."

In April, 2010, Claimant filed a petition against the Employer and listed "Avizent" as the carrier.

Within days, defense counsel filed a notice of appearance and listed "Avizent" as the carrier. 

Before the end of April, 2010, an adjuster from "Avizent" filed a Response to Petition.

In May 2010, another PFB named "Avizent" as the carrier.

In June, an "Avizent" adjuster filed a Response.

In June 2010, another PFB named "Avizent" as the carrier.

Followed by another "Avizent" response.

In October 2010, another PFB against "Avizent." An Avizent adjuster filed a Response.

In March 2012, another PFB against "Avizent" as the carrier. In April, another "Avizent" Response. 

In June 2012, another PFB against "Avizent." In July, another "Avizent" Response. 

On October 9, 2012 a Notice of Resolution of Issues, listing "Avizent" as the carrier. 

March 4, 2013, a Motion for Approval of Attorney's fees and Allocation filed. The carrier listed in the style of the case "York Risk Services." The carrier in our database on March 4? Avizent. The order that the OJCC database would generate on March 4, 2013 would list Avizent as the carrier. 

I pause and ponder whether this ever happens in Circuit Court. Has any attorney reading this ever called or emailed the Circuit Clerk and asked them to change the name of one of the parties on a case?If you have, and it worked, please email me david.langham@doah.state.fl.us. The carrier on this case is "Avizent." That name is on every pleading filed in this case. All of the Petitions named this company. All of the Responses came from this company. 

I understand that it may seem easier if the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims receives a call or email and then changes the public record, inserts "York Risk Services," deletes "Avizent" and proceeds. However, this does not make sense to me. All of this described case has been between an injured worker, the employer, and "Avizent." Why would the OJCC enter an order relieving "York Risk Services" from liability? 

Such a change, would likely cause more questions than answers. Certainly, I understand that there are a multitude of possible valid answers. I have no issue with the fact that the carrier needs to be changed. However, it is appropriate that such a change be documented. 

How?

Well, the parties could stipulate to the substitution of carriers. Rule 60Q6.116(5). Need that be a separate document? No, the Judge could consider that in conjunction with the Motion for Approval. Or, the parties could file a separate motion, see rule 60Q6.115. 

Essentially, it is important that the public record accurately reflect the true nature of the situation in a given case. If the parties change, due to merger, contract, or otherwise, the OJCC will be happy to make that change in our database also. However, the parties have to precipitate that change with something beyond a telephone call to the district office or an email. This requirement preserves the record, and will allow someone in months or years to determine why an order was entered approving a settlement in Claimant v. York Risk Services, when the case was styled, over a period of years, as Claimant v. Avizent.

Just tell us "Who are you" in a pleading, and we can accommodate your needs and maintain the public record.