Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Court probed rumors of leak

The settlement of a high-profile case raised the justices' suspicions that insider information played a role.

By STEVE BOUSQUET
Published July 16, 2005

TALLAHASSEE - In a highly unusual action, the Florida Supreme Court launched an investigation last month to determine whether a court employee leaked sensitive information in a pending case.

Dozens of court employees were questioned and computers were examined after a contentious civil case was settled just days before the court decided in favor of an injured worker and against an insurance carrier last month. The court considered the settlement's timing "suspicious," court spokesman Craig Waters said.

"The confidentiality of the court is a very serious matter," Waters said. But the court's inspector general, Ken Chambers, found no evidence of a leak, Waters said.

Chief Justice Barbara Pariente approved the investigation because of a "widespread rumor" in South Florida legal circles that a confidential settlement may have been hastened by insider information.

The case involved Rodrigo Aguilera, a Miami warehouse worker who suffered severe back, leg and internal injuries in a forklift accident six years ago.

After complaining that his insurance carrier denied him emergency medical care, Aguilera sued Inservices Inc., which claimed immunity under Florida's workers' compensation law.

Eight days after the settlement was announced, the court's 4-3 decision sided with Aguilera, reversing an earlier ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal. The opinion was released June 16. The case was closely watched by insurance carriers and advocates for injured workers, with both sides concerned about a possible legal precedent.

Both sides urged the court to dismiss the case after the settlement was reached, but the court issued its decision anyway.

Two attorneys who negotiated the settlement said Friday they were unaware of any leaks, though one said she heard rumors to that effect. Both said they could not discuss the settlement because of a confidentiality provision.

"I have never in my career received unauthorized information from any court, and certainly not the Supreme Court," said Inservices' attorney, Joshua Lerner of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell in Miami. "This is totally out of left field."

Aguilera's attorney, Lauri Waldman Ross of Miami, said, "Under no circumstances did any person on the part of the plaintiffs' side ever hear anything from anyone in this case."

It is illegal for a government employee to leak word of a future official action that is of financial benefit to another. A lawyer who released such information could face disciplinary action in addition to criminal prosecution.

Attorneys say a leak could also undermine public faith in an independent judiciary.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in November 2003 and spent the next year and a half considering the facts, an unusually long time.

The majority found the insurance carrier's conduct "outrageous" and repeated Aguilera's allegations that he was urged to lie to his own lawyer and was denied emergency treatment, even after passing feces in his urine as a result of suffering a fistula, a hole in the bladder.

The court did not hold the insurance carrier liable but did reject its claims of immunity.

But the case was already over by then.

Eight days before the court issued its decision, both sides sought to dismiss the case because it had been settled.

"I suspect some decent money was paid to get Aguilera to settle the case," said Mark Zientz, a Miami lawyer who once represented the injured man.

Zientz, who specializes in representing injured workers, said he attended a meeting of the Florida Workers Advocates in Orlando the day after the settlement notice was filed with the court. At the meeting, Zientz said, he spoke to two lawyers who told him they had known the case would be settled.

Zientz said he suspected the carrier may have wanted to settle, possibly to head off a legal precedent that would be bad for the industry.

"It certainly doesn't mean they knew what the result was going to be, but it certainly is indicative that an opinion was going to come out and kind of an indication that they were not too comfortable in their position," Zientz said.

Waters, the court spokesman, said the decision was in the court's "pipeline" for a month before it was issued, as is customary.

Debate among the justices appears to have been especially spirited, with the majority's opinion revised to answer claims by the three dissenting justices that the court lacked jurisdiction in the case.

The majority consisted of Pariente and Harry Lee Anstead, Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince. The minority consisted of Kenneth Bell Jr., Raoul Cantero III and Charles Wells.

Chambers, the court's inspector general, interviewed about 50 employees and tested computers for a possible security breach. A copy of his report was not immediately available.

Waters said it is not final and that Chambers was on vacation. Waters said the report may contain details on court security operations that are exempt from public disclosure. That information would have to be redacted from the report before it is released, Waters said.

The investigation recalled one of the darkest chapters in the court's history. Two Supreme Court justices, Hal Dekle and David McCain, resigned in 1975 in the face of impeachment proceedings after it was revealed they had private contact with attorneys in cases pending before them.

In the Dekle case, the court launched an investigation to determine whether court employees leaked embarrassing details about the justices to the St. Petersburg Times. A former court employee was investigated in 1974 for allegedly leaking documents to defense lawyers in two cases.

Times researcher Mary Mellstrom contributed to this report. Reporter Steve Bousquet can be reached at bousquet@sptimes.com

[Last modified July 16, 2005, 00:24:14]