Gerardo Castiello's Legal Cases (3)

Administrative law

Gerardo Castiello v. Division of Administrative Hearings, 17-0477RU

Jan 10, 2018

OUTCOME: Summary final order (judgment) granted.

With able counselor David Caldevilla, the former chair of the 2nd DCA Judicial Nominating Commission we successfully challenged the use of the Guidelines utilized by the Statewide Nominating Commission ... for Judges of Compensation Claims (SNCJNC) at reappointment hearings. In 2002, the Florida Legislature directed the Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims to draft rules for the reappointment process consistent with specific, objective criteria by which to measure a Judge's performance. He found within his Order, as we had argued, that the objective performance measures required by statute were not in place. The ALJ agreed that the Guidelines, which were drafted by the SNCJNC constituted unadopted rules which the SNCJCC had no authority to draft.

Workers compensation

Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 192 So. 3d. 431 (Fla. 2016)

Apr 28, 2016

OUTCOME: The Florida Supreme Court quoted my trial Order 9 times in finding the attorneys fee statute unconstitutional.

This landmark case found the attorneys fee cap imposed via irrebuttable presumption per statute unconstitutional.

Ethics and professional responsibility

University of Miami v. Dansky, 622 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)

Aug 12, 1993

OUTCOME: Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted. Defense counsel for the other carrier, who had previously represented my client was removed from the case.

My client had previously been represented by other counsel when my client had been insured. My client was now self insured and was involved in a matter where a claimant had two accidents: one older on ... e from when my client was insured and a newer one from when my client was self-insured. Prior counsel for the employer I represented was now advocating the interests of the workers compensation carrier for the earlier date of accident to my client's potential detriment. The positions now being advocated by prior counsel were clearly adverse to my client. I successfully argued that a presumption existed that prior counsel had engaged in privileged communications in his earlier representation of my client and that this prohibited him from now advocating for another party (the former workers compensation insurance carrier) against my client.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained