MT. SINAI MEDICAL CENTER AND ALL RISK CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAMIE SAMUELS, AND 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.
The court affirmed the deputy commissioner's finding of bad faith and the award of attorney's fees, but remanded for reconsideration of the fee amount.
[1] An employer/carrier's knowledge of a claimant's need for further medical attention and failure to actively and expeditiously pursue and investigate their obligation to pa…
[2] An employer/carrier's duty to investigate applies regardless of whether notice of a claimant's need for medical attention is received from an unauthorized physician.
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 intelligenceThe employer/carrier appealed an order finding they acted in bad faith and awarding claimant's attorney's fees. The deputy commissioner found the empl…
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
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The employer/ carrier appeal from the deputy commissioner’s order in which the deputy found that they had acted in bad faith, and ordered that they pay claimant’s attorney’s fee, found by the deputy to be $25,000. We affirm, but remand for further consideration in light of our decision in the parties’ earlier appeal from the deputy’s award of compensation benefits.
There was competent and substantial evidence to support the deputy’s finding of bad faith. The record clearly indicates that the E/C had knowledge of claimant’s need for further medical attention, and completely failed in their duty to pursue and investigate actively and expeditiously their obligation to pay benefits. Florida Erection Services, Inc. v. McDonald, 395 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Indeed, the E/C’s duty to investigate held true regardless of whether the notice was received from an unauthorized physician. DiMuro v. Dave’s Tile Service, Inc., 409 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). No abuse of discretion has been shown.
There was also competent and substantial evidence to support the deputy’s award of a $25,000 attorney’s fee. Proper findings of fact were made by the deputy pursuant to the criteria set forth in section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Mueller v. Searcy, 418 So. 2d 397, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In light of those findings, we hold the award not to be excessive.
However, we recently reversed a portion of the deputy’s award of benefits to claimant, holding that claimant was not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits during one particular period of the award. See Mt. Sinai Medical Center v. Samuels, 453 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Thus, the total benefits received by claimant through the diligence of her attorney are now somewhat reduced; and, as one of the criteria to be considered in setting an attorney’s fee is the amount of benefits obtained, we must remand the cause to the deputy for reconsideration in light of the reduction.
MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Marietta Corp. & Scott Wetzel Servs. v. Glumb, 523 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…intent, when reviewing the propriety of an attorney’s fee award, this court will examine the findings of fact rendered by the deputy commissioner pursuant to the statutory criteria set forth in section 440.34(1). Mt. Sinai Medical Center v. Samuels, 453 So. 2d 82, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Among the major considerations involved in the determination of a workers’ compensation attorney’s fee are the time and labor reasonably required to prosecute the claim, and the hourly fee customarily charged in the area for…
-
Brevard Cmty. Coll. & Gallagher-Bassett Ins. Serv. v. Anderson Barber, 488 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…t will receive supplemental benefits of $42,185.24 (although no evidence of the present value of supplemental benefits was presented), we conclude that the $20,000 fee was not so excessive as to warrant reversal. Mt. Sinai Medical Center v. Samuels, 453 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). AFFIRMED. WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . We further find that claimant failed to make an adequate showing to overcome the work-product protection. Agri-Business, Inc. v. Bridges, 397 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). .…
-
MT. Sinai Med. Ctr. & All Risk Corp. of Fla. v. Samuels, 453 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
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
- Fla. Erection Servs., Inc. v. Raymer McDONALD, 395 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Holiday Care Ctr. v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- MT. Sinai Med. Ctr. & All Risk Corp. of Fla. v. Samuels, 453 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- MacEk v. State, 409 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Clemente DiMURO v. Dave's Tile Serv., Inc., 409 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- C. F. Mueller & the Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Searcy, 418 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)