JUMA CONSTRUCTION AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ORLANDO VILLANUEVA AND THE DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the deputy commissioner's attorney's fee award in a workers' compensation case, holding that mathematical errors in the affidavit supporting the fee were not grounds for reversal where the errors could have been corrected within thirty days and the deputy considered statutory factors.
A deputy commissioner's attorney's fee award in workers' compensation is affirmed when mathematical errors in supporting affidavits could have been corrected within thirty days and the deputy considered all relevant statutory factors.
[1] Mathematical errors in an affidavit supporting an attorney's fee award in workers' compensation are not grounds for reversal when such errors could have been corrected wi…
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 intelligenceIn a workers' compensation case, the deputy commissioner awarded an attorney's fee based on an affidavit containing mathematical errors. The appellant…
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 Attorney'S Fees In Workers' Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation case, appellant raises two issues regarding the amount of the attorney’s fee awarded by the deputy commissioner. First, appellant contends the award must be reversed because the deputy, in determining the amount of the fee, relied on an affidavit that is mathematically incorrect and not based on competent substantial evidence. The errors complained of could easily have been corrected had they been brought to the deputy’s attention within thirty days of rendition of the order, see Section 440.25(4)(a), Florida Statutes; Polk County Board of County Commissioners v. Patterson, 433 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Dade American Hospital Supply v. Perez, 417 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st 1982); Sunland v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Therefore we affirm.
Appellant also contends the deputy erred in departing from the statutory schedule for attorneys fees, however, the deputy indicated in the order that he considered all of the relevant, prescribed factors to the extent circumstances permitted, see Roundtree Transport, Inc. v. Godek, 412 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The order appealed is AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alro Metals & Home Indem. Co. v. Pullins, 451 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…dinarily, we would not correct this discrepancy on appeal because it could have, and indeed should have, been brought to the attention of the deputy within the thirty-day statutory period before becoming final. E.g., Juma Construction v. Villaneuva, 437 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); § 440.25(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). We do so only because claimant concedes this error. The only error demonstrated by appellants should have been presented to the…
-
Albertson's Inc. v. Natale, 555 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…be brought to the attention of the judge in a motion for rehearing, and therefore decline to disturb the award. Fla.W.C.R.P. 4.141; Austen Construction Management Corp. v. Waters, 508 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Juma Construction v. Villanueva, 437 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Acosta Roofing Company v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).3 We also affirm the refusal of the judge to treat appellee as a part-time worker pursuant to Section 440.14(1)(f). Section 440.14(1)(a) directs that if a…
Authorities Cited
- Sunland Hospital/State OF Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Acosta Roofing Co. & Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Gussie Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Dade Am. Hosp. Supply & Kemper Ins. v. Manuel Perez and the Division of Workers' Compensation, 417 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Brown v. State, 412 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Roundtree Transp., Inc. v. Godek, 412 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Polk Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Commercial Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Patterson, 433 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)