A.G. HOLLY STATE HOSPITAL AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
MARIE KAISER, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 reversed and remanded an attorney's fee award in a workers' compensation case because the trial judge improperly applied an inflation factor when calculating the present value of future attendant care benefits for fee determination purposes.
An inflation factor should not be used in quantifying future attendant care benefits for attorney fee determination purposes in workers' compensation cases.
[1] An inflation factor should not be applied when calculating the present value of future attendant care benefits for purposes of determining attorney's fees in workers' com…
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“an inflation factor should not be used in quantifying future attendant care benefits for attorney fee determination purposes”
The court cited its prior ruling in Tri-State Motor Transit Company v. Judy to establish the proper methodology for calculating future attendant care benefits.
The employer and carrier appealed and the claimant cross-appealed an order awarding attorney's fees in a workers' compensation case where the parties …
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 Statutory Fee Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/earrier appeal and claimant cross-appeals an order awarding attorney’s fees. The parties stipulated that the fee should be based upon application of the statutory fee schedule; however, they disagreed as to the amount of future benefits obtained. We affirm the order in all respects except for the calculation of the value of future attendant care benefits upon which the fee award was partially based.
In calculating the value of future attendant care benefits, for purposes of the award of attorney’s fees, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) accepted the testimony of an expert economist who projected a figure of $41,962.21 as the present value of attendant care costs in this case. The expert arrived at this figure by applying a growth factor of 5.5% and then using an 8% discount factor. Subsequent to the JCC’s order in this case, this court ruled in Tri-State Motor Transit Company v. Judy, 566 So. 2d 537, 540-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), that an inflation factor should not be used in quantifying future attendant care benefits for attorney fee determination purposes. Accordingly, this case must be remanded to the JCC for recomputation of future attendant care benefits which necessarily requires recomputation of the attorney’s fee award.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.