There is a potential for delay and redundancy in workers' compensation litigation. Periodically, there are litigants who are very reluctant to stop litigating. 

Judge David Langham

Winston Churchill was credited with "Never, never, never give up." The writers of "Galaxy Quest" picked up on that with the heroic mantra of the crew of the starship Protector: "Never give up, never surrender!"

I periodically think of these two quotes about being steadfast and committed. There are examples worthy of discussion. 

In one, a 2019 petition for benefits was followed by the withdrawals and appearances of various counsels. An eventual final order in 2021 denied the benefits. More petitions followed, as did motions to dismiss and for summary final order. 

Then came a motion for review, essentially a notice of appeal, in 2022. There was a notice of the cost of the record, followed by a notice of failure to pay the cost. There was an eventual record and finally a 2023 decision from the court, and then a mandate from the court in 2024. 

That decision was followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was denied. That was followed six months later by a Supreme Court order denying a notice to reopen the case. Undeterred by the Supreme Court's denial to reopen, there was then a similar request to a district court to reopen. 

It is worth remembering that it is exceedingly rare for the Florida Supreme Court to address workers' compensation.

There is, some might say, a "never give up" illustrated in such an extended history.  There is some element of "never surrender" when you are seeking Supreme Court review in any instance. Nonetheless, this example spanned merely years. 

Consider instead a complaint alleging issues of constitutional law (state and federal), federal statutes, state statutes and actions in a variety of courts— one about "due process under the law, false statements, defamation, legal insufficiency of prior proceedings, bias, racism, malice and more." In 2024, such a case was reviewed, with the court's denial ruling in 2025. 

That story begins with a settlement order entered in 1991. Then these allegations were raised in 1993, seeking benefits and striving to set aside the settlement, and the claimant did not prevail (order one). 

The claimant returned with a petition for benefits, resulting in a 1996 trial. The attempt to reopen the case was not successful (order two). The District Court of Appeal reviewed that denial and affirmed. An attempt to have the Florida Supreme Court review was also unsuccessful. 

The claimant returned to litigate the issues again, and following a 2003 trial, his effort to set aside the settlement was denied (order three). This third order was reviewed by the 1st District Court of Appeal and affirmed in 2004.  

A 2006 petition led to another hearing and yet another dismissal (order four). Shortly thereafter, another judge of compensation claims reviewed the case and entered a 2007 order (order five), concluding that the claimant "has litigated all issues relating to his settlement." The judge also denied the claimant’s motion to remove the case to federal court (order six). 

The fifth order was affirmed by the District Court. And, review by the Florida Supreme Court was again denied for lack of jurisdiction. 

The claimant then filed a “complaint” in 2022. The judge noted “numerous” efforts to “set aside the settlement and reopen his case.” These were “addressed in various orders” as well as reviewed by the appellate courts. After consideration, the assigned judge “denied and dismissed with prejudice” the “claimant’s requests for relief” (order seven).  

Ongoing pleadings reasserting the various allegations led to an order striking filings and denying relief (order eight), then another (order nine) and yet another (order 10). The District Court reviewed yet again before dismissing this latest appeal in 2024. 

Winston just keeps playing in my head as I write this: Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never give up.

There is much to admire in persistence and perseverance. There are many instances in which people conclude that they have not been afforded their day in court, their chance to expound. That opportunity to be heard is the fundamental purpose of the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims.

And yet, there comes a point when the dispute is over. There comes an end, win or lose, when the opportunity to be heard is over. These "never give up" examples illustrate that this might take decades. This all also demonstrates that finality can be elusive. The desires and allegations of parties can be deeply ingrained and may motivate persistence and repetition.

David Langham is deputy chief judge of the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims. This column is reprinted, with his permission, from his Florida Workers' Comp Adjudication blog.