DAVID CUNNINGHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Claimant in this workers’ compensation appeal challenges the amount of the attorney’s fee awarded in connection with a claim for medical benefits. Specifically, claimant maintains (1) that the judge of compensation claims abused her discretion in failing to award the guideline attorney fee as prescribed by section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (1979); and (2) that the judge misconstrued the evidence in rejecting the present value of future psychiatric care and medication as items for recovery for purposes of setting an attorney’s fee. We find no error in the judge’s determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee in the circumstances of this case, and affirm the order in this regard. However, we find the attorney’s fee order makes no reference to assessment of costs, even though the merits order made provision for payment of costs. Therefore, we remand the cause for améndment of the order to reflect an assessment of costs.
Accordingly, the order awarding an attorney’s fee in the amount of $46,000 is affirmed, and the cause is remanded with directions to amend the order to provide for assessment of costs.
WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gainer v. State, 590 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…sue as to the voluntariness of Gainer’s plea. If he agreed to a 7 year sentence only because he believed that his guidelines score resulted in a recommended range encompassing that sentence, that plea may be considered involuntary. Hingson v. State, 553 So. 2d 768, 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), on appeal after remand Hingson v. State, 589 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The supreme court has held that a defendant should be permitted to withdraw a plea when the plea was based upon a misapprehension of the facts. Hi…
-
Gregory Banks v. State, 887 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2004)…ideline sentence could be the basis for a valid rule 3.850 challenge to the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea. See Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Hingson v. State, 553 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Gainer v. State, 590 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In Hingson, the defendant pled to a term of years based upon an improperly scored sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Hingson, 553 So. 2d at 769. The First District Court of Ap…
-
Datoral Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…motion to withdraw the plea in the trial court. Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Under a Rule 3.850 motion, defendant’s plea based on the improperly calculated scoresheet may be considered involuntary. Hingson v. State, 553 So. 2d 768, 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). As cited in Hingson, the Supreme Court has held that a defendant should be permitted to withdraw a guilty plea when the plea was based upon a misapprehension of facts. Hingson, 553 So. 2d at 769 (citing Forbert v. State, 43…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence