DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICE/DIVISION OF BLIND SERVICES AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMY BEAN, 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.
The court reversed an attorney's fee award of $50,000 because the deputy commissioner's order failed to make specific findings of fact regarding which Lee Engineering factors were considered and how they applied to the fee calculation.
An order awarding attorney's fees must contain detailed findings of fact explaining which criteria from Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows were considered and how they were applied to the fee amount.
[1] An order awarding attorney's fees in a workers' compensation case must contain findings of fact identifying which Lee Engineering criteria were considered and demonstrati…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“To comport with the requirements of law, an order awarding attorney's fees must indicate what factors were considered in determining the amount of the fee.”
The court establishing the procedural requirement for attorney's fee orders.
The deputy commissioner awarded claimant's attorneys $50,000 in fees for securing workers' compensation benefits, but the order merely stated that Lee…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
We have for review an order of the deputy commissioner (DC) awarding claimant’s attorneys a fee of $50,000.00 for legal services rendered in securing claimant compensation benefits. We reverse.
To comport with the requirements of law, an order awarding attorney’s fees must indicate what factors were considered in determining the amount of the fee. Specifically, the order must contain findings of fact indicating which criteria set forth in 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 fails to set forth any finding as to the amount of benefits secured by claimant’s attorneys. Without such findings, this court is unable to give the fee award issue meaningful review. On this basis, we reverse and remand the matter to the DC for entry of a proper order. See Sherwood Medical Industries v. Ward, 397 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Casings, supra; State v. Caldwell, 388 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Manny’s Dresses v. Arias, 390 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We express no opinion on the other issues raised on appeal, all of which relate to the fee award.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Collier Cnty. v. Salter, 457 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…on Co. v. Fellows, 209 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1968), were applied to arrive at the fee awarded. Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Porter, 452 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services/Division of Blind Services v. Bean, 435 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We hasten to add that this reversal should not be interpreted as an indication that we view the award of $8,500.00 as excessive and/or an abuse of discretion. The order simply does not contain the necessary findings to permit an…
-
G & A Bldg. Maint. & Sentry Claim Servs. v. Makuski, 510 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…cur. . Fiesta Fashions, Inc. v. Capin, 450 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Roundtree Transport, Inc. v. Godek, 412 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). . Id. See also, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services/Division of Blind Services v. Bean, 435 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bre-vard County Mental Health Center v. Kelly, 420 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); East Coast Tire Co. v. Denmark, 381 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). .Under either party's calculation of reasonable hours, this would amount to…
-
Baron Transp. & Claims Ctr. v. Riley, 526 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…s impossible. School Board of Collier County v. Salter, 457 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Porter, 452 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services/Division of Blind Services v. Bean, 435 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). [*1029] The order awarding attorney’s fees is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings. The order awarding TTD benefits is AFFIRMED. SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
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)
- State v. Caldwell, 388 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Am. Paper Chem. Prods. v. Bright, 389 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Casings v. Williams, 389 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Sherwood Med. Indus. & Gen. Adjustment Bureau v. Ward, 397 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Manny's Dresses & Parliament Ins. Co. v. Arias, 390 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Maurice v. Montgomery, 390 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)