MICHAEL HOUCK, APPELLANT,
v.
GUETTLER & SONS AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 denial of travel expenses as taxable costs and reversed an award of additional attorney's fees that exceeded the parties' stipulated fee agreement.
Travel expenses for depositions are not ordinarily recoverable as taxable costs, and a deputy commissioner cannot award additional attorney's fees beyond a parties' stipulated fee agreement.
[1] A deputy commissioner lacks authority to award attorney's fees beyond the amount stipulated by the parties, even when the claimant files a claim for extraordinary expense…
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 intelligenceClaimant sought $631 in travel expenses for depositions in South Carolina and later claimed $350 in attorney's fees for a South Carolina attorney, des…
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 Travel Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Claimant appeals from the deputy commissioner’s order denying his claim for $631 in travel expenses incident to taking depositions in Greenville, South Carolina. That such expenses are not ordinarily recoverable as taxable costs is too well established to require citation. Claimant has not shown that the deputy failed to follow the correct rule of law under the circumstances of this case. The circumstances shown do not warrant recovery under the holding in S & H Fabricating v. Wamley, 423 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Claimant’s appeal is completely lacking in merit, and this provision of the order is affirmed.
The employer and carrier cross-appeal the deputy’s order awarding claimant a $350 attorney’s fee based on the estimated cost of employing a South Carolina attorney to attend the depositions. In a joint stipulation, claimant agreed with the employer and carrier to $10,000 as reasonable compensation for all services by claimant’s attorney in this case. The stipulation recited that “the parties have considered the amount of benefits obtained, the time spent, the novelty of the issues involved in [sic] the complexity of the case.” Claimant subsequently filed his claim for extraordinary travel expenses incurred for the South Carolina depositions. The filing of that claim, properly disallowed, did not authorize the deputy to go beyond the parties’ stipulation and award claimant additional attorney’s fees in lieu of the claimed expenses.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McARTHUR Farms & Gen. Accident Ins. v. Peterson, 586 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…-041, Fla.Stat. (1989); Kay v. Katzen, 568 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990). The same rule is applicable to prevailing parties in workers’ compensation cases. G.W. Wood Products v. Parrott, 447 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Houck v. Guettler & Sons, 450 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); § 440.-34(3), Fla.Stat. The general rule prevails notwithstanding the fact that neither section 57.041, Florida Statutes, nor section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes, is limited by its specific terms to taxable costs. The stipulati…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- S & H Fabricating & Eng'g, Inc. v. Neda Wamley, 423 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)