MUNFORD, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RICKY WIRICK, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1981-01-16
No. UU-70
McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
392 So. 2d 377 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1981) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that a workers' compensation attorney retainer agreement requiring the employer to withhold fees from all compensation benefits is invalid.


Facts & Procedural History

Munford, Inc. appealed an order approving a retainer agreement where a workers' compensation claimant's attorney would receive a percentage of benefit…

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.


Opinion of the Court
JOANOS, Judge.

JOANOS, Judge.

Appellant Munford, Inc. appeals an order of the deputy commissioner which was issued shortly after the claim was filed approving a retainer agreement between a workers’ compensation claimant and his attorney. The agreement provided that the claimant was to pay his attorney 20% of the first $10,000 of compensation benefits and 15% of any excess. The fee was to be a lien on compensation benefits and the claimant agreed to direct his employer, Munford, Inc., to withhold and pay to the attorney those percentage amounts from “any and all compensation” paid to claimant. The Order approved this agreement and required Munford, Inc. to retain and hold those amounts from “any and all monies paid to the claimant” for the benefit of claimant’s attorney. We reverse on the authority of East Coast Tire Co. v. Denmark, 381 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

In Denmark, this Court disapproved an identical retainer agreement. Although we stated that § 440.34, Florida Statutes, does not require successful prosecution of a claim or performance of legal services before a fee is approved, the deputy commissioner is not relieved from considering the statutory standards in determining the amount of the award. As in Denmark, the minimal services provided at the time the agreement was approved suggest that “the blanket agreement ... is speculative and unreasonable” in light of the statutory criteria. 381 So. 2d at 339. This Court also noted the apparent impropriety of basing the fee award on “any and all compensation received” rather than those benefits for which legal services had been or would be rendered.

Finally, the Order’s provision requiring the appellant/employer to retain and pay to the claimant’s attorney a certain percentage from “all monies paid to claimant” is invalid under Denmark. Section 440.34(3) does not authorize such continuing duties upon the employer or its carrier. REVERSED.

McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Wekiwa Concrete v. Reddick, 396 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
    …the attorney a percentage of “any and all compensation” paid to the claimant. The fee award should be based upon a percentage of the benefits secured adjusted by consideration of the factors as provided in Section 440.34(1). Munford Inc. v. Wirick, 392 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); East Coast Tire Company v. Denmark, supra. Also, it is clear that voluntary and timely payment of additional benefits by the employer/carrier, after unsuccessfully defending the payment of benefits in the earlier stages of the c…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw