ARTHUR RASKA, APPELLANT,
v.
GLASGOW CONTRACTING CO. AND FEISCO, 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 attendant care reimbursement but reversed denial of expert witness fees as taxable costs where expert testimony was admissible and relevant to the issue on which claimant prevailed.
Expert witness fees must be taxed as costs when expert testimony is admissible and relevant to an issue on which the claimant prevails, regardless of whether the judge relied upon the testimony in reaching the decision.
[1] Expert witness fees must be taxed as costs in worker's compensation cases when the testimony is admissible and relevant to an issue on which the claimant prevails, regard…
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“when expert testimony is received as admissible and the testimony is relevant to an issue on which the claimant prevails, the witness fees should be taxed as costs regardless of whether the testimony is relied upon by the JCC”
Court explaining the correct legal standard for awarding expert witness fees as taxable costs in worker's compensation cases
Arthur Raska, a worker's compensation claimant, sought reimbursement for attendant care services provided by his wife and requested that expert witnes…
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 Claim For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Raska, the claimant in this worker’s compensation appeal, challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying reimbursement for attendant care services that had been provided by the claimant’s wife. Error is also asserted in the JCC’s refusal to award expert witness fees as taxable costs when the claimant prevailed on a portion of his attendant care claim. Although we can affirm the denial of attendant care reimbursement without further comment, we must reverse the denial of taxable costs.
The claimant offered expert testimony from a registered nurse and a rehabilitation specialist which was relevant to the successful portion of his claim for attendant care. The JCC mistakenly believed that he could deny costs on the ground that he did not rely upon the experts’ testimony in arriving at his decision. It is well established, however, that when expert testimony is received as admissible and the testimony is relevant to an issue on which the claimant prevails, the witness fees should be taxed as costs regardless of whether the testimony is relied upon by the JCC. See Stick v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance Co., 139 So. 2d 398, 401 (Fla.1962); Christopher v. Dobbs Houses, Inc., 411 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Accordingly, the denial of attendant care benefits for the period of June 7, 1987, to March 1,1990, is AFFIRMED, the denial of costs is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SMITH and MINER, JJ., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Bakeries & Kemper Grp. v. Corwin Cooper, 659 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…trict the claimant’s ability to obtain medical examinations of his own choice. A testifying expert’s witness fee might be assessed as costs, should the claimant prevail in a proceeding at which the expert testified. See Raska v. Glasgow Contracting, 588 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); § 440.34(3), Fla.Stat. (1991); see also § 440.31, Fla.Stat. (1991). However, there was no provision which would generally obligate another party to pay for the claimant’s chosen medical examination. If there were a conflict in t…
-
Moore v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Broadspire, 987 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ly upon these individuals in awarding benefits. In this regard the JCC erred as a matter of law. If the testimony was used in any way to support an award of benefits, the witness fees should be taxed to the E/C. See Raska v. Glasgow Contracting Co., 588 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Christopher v. Dobbs Houses, Inc., 411 So. 2d 267, 267-268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Stich v. Indep. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 139 So. 2d 398, 400 (Fla.1962). Finally, claimant challenges the denial of costs associated with leg…
-
Bartlett v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett, 672 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…xable costs. As the claimant notes, Dr. Suarez’s testimony was relevant to this issue on which the claimant prevailed. The judge therefore should have established the claimant’s entitlement to an award of taxable costs. Raska v. Glasgow Contracting, 588 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); § 440.34(3), Fla.Stat. (1991). The appealed order is accordingly affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the ease is remanded. BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ruth M. Stich (Rogers) v. Indep. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 139 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1962)
- Tilus Christopher v. Dobbs Houses, Inc., 411 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)