Last summer a judge in Florida made waves when he said the state’s exclusive remedy in workers’ comp was unconstitutional. Yesterday the state’s Third District Court of Appeal said “not so much” and repudiated his claim on procedural errors, since the plaintiffs in his specific case really did not have legal standing in the question of whether the system was constitutional or not.

So the decision is out, but the question about how well the workers’ comp system works and if it really needs an overhaul remains.

The “Padgett decision” as it is called, was a decision last year that said that workers’ comp benefits were grossly inadequate, so much that they were no longer constitutional. Judge Cueto said that if workers were not allowed to use trial courts to get their workers’ comp benefits, the benefits they do get through the state’s system should be up to par. His ruling went to the appeals court who said that the two injured worker cases he was basing his opinion on were moot and not in standing to debate the constitutionality of the workers’ comp system so they threw out Cueto’s decision- but not based on whether or not he was right about the inadequacies.

Many still think that despite the dismissal, the system does need to be looked at and there are still cases going on that involve the constitutionality of aspects of the workers’ comp system. They could still make it up to the state’s Supreme Court. I’m not sure that getting rid of the system entirely is the way that people (should) want to go, but maybe this is an opportunity to look at how they can get it back to a system where workers get the benefits they need and deserve and employers are protected from litigation.