CASINGS, FLORIDA, INC. AND AMERICAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN L. WILLIAMS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Casings, Florida, Inc. and American Mutual Insurance Company appealed an order awarding $25,000 in attorney fees to the appellee in a workers' compensation case. The court reversed because the order failed to specify the basis for the award or expressly consider the required Lee Engineering factors, making the award facially insufficient.
The court held that an attorney fee award must be reversed where the order fails on its face to reveal any factor upon which the judge relied in arriving at the award. An appellate court is not required to review the record and speculate on the basis of an award; the order must expressly demonstrate compliance with the Lee Engineering criteria.
[1] An order awarding attorney fees must specify the basis for the award.
[2] An appellate court is not required to review the record to speculate on the basis of an attorney fee award when the order itself is insufficient.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A review of the JIC's order reveals that every factor prescribed by this Court in Lee Engineering was expressly considered by him in reaching the conclusion that a fair and reasonable fee was $22,-500.”
Establishes the standard from Tinsley requiring express consideration of Lee Engineering factors in the written order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Judge of Industrial Claims awarded $25,000 in attorney fees to the appellee. At the end of the hearing, the judge briefly referenced 'Lee Engineer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the Judge of Industrial Claims awarding $25,000 in attorney fees without specifying any basis therefor. Appellee argues that a review of the transcript of the hearing for attorney fees indicates that the judge took into account the factors enunciated in Lee Engineering and Construction Company v. Fellows, 209 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1968), and that Tinsley v. City of St. Petersburg, 373 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1979), permits this court to affirm the award where it is clear from the record that the factors in Lee Engineering were considered.
The record reveals that, at the end of the hearing, the judge stated: “When you come into the courtroom it becomes Lee Engineering and the Canon of Ethics . . . . ” This, however, is the only indication that the judge took the requisite criteria into account. In Tinsley, the Florida Supreme Court held (373 So. 2d at 676):
A review of the JIC’s order reveals that every factor prescribed by this Court in Lee Engineering was expressly considered by him in reaching the conclusion that a fair and reasonable fee was $22,-500.... [T]he award in Volpe1 was reversed because the IRC was at a loss to determine the basis of the JIC’s award in view of the fact that there was nothing in the order awarding the fee which indicated that Lee Engineering had been followed and there was no competent evidence of the number of hours spent by claimant’s counsel. In the present case, neither of these problems exist as the JIC expressly considered all the factors in Lee Engineering after first determining that competent and substantial evidence supported a finding that petitioner’s counsel had spent 250 to 300 hours obtaining benefits. (e. s.)
The order here fails to reveal any factor upon which the judge relied in arriving at the award and is, therefore, on its face insufficient.2 Under Tinsley and authorities cited therein, the appellate court is not required to review the record and speculate on the basis of the award.
Accordingly, the order below is reversed and the cause remanded for entry of a new order in compliance herewith.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and SHAW, JJ., concur. . Volpe v. Sirozotti and Natale Nobili Construction Co., IRC 2-3171 (1977).
. Lamar West Florida, Inc. v. Corbett, IRC 2-3367 (1978), and Dade County Department of Health v. Barager, IRC 2-3343 (1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Service/Division OF Blind Servs. & Div. of Risk Mgmt. v. Bean, 435 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1968), were considered and how they were applied. An appellate court is not required to review the record and speculate on the basis of the award. Casings, Florida, Inc. v. Williams, 389 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In this case, the order merely states that the factors in Lee Engineering were considered, without making any findings indicating how those factors applied or upon what factor(s) the fee award was based. Moreover, the order fail…
-
Sherwood Med. Indus. & Gen. Adjustment Bureau v. Ward, 397 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ation, 279 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1973). Failure to sufficiently state the basis of the award requires reversal. State of Florida, Sunland Training Center at Miami v. Cald [*397] well, 388 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Casings, Florida, Inc. v. Williams, 389 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Manny's Dresses v. Arias, 390 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In the present case, since there was no stipulation as to the amount of attorney’s fee, the deputy commissioner should have stated in the order what factors were c…
-
Manny's Dresses & Parliament Ins. Co. v. Arias, 390 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…s that the factors in Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1968) have been considered, but findings of fact must be sufficiently stated, if a meaningful review is to be conducted. See Casings, Florida, Inc. v. Williams, 389 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State of Florida, Sunland Training Center at Miami v. Caldwell, 388 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). REMANDED for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and THOMPSON, JJ., and LILES, WO…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gray v. Attorney Gen., State of Fla. and/or State Attorney, Cir. Court, Volusia Cnty., Fla., 209 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1968)
- Tinsley v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 373 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1979)