HYATT REGENCY GRAND CYPRESS AND SCOTT WETZEL SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
HORACE WILLIAMS, APPELLEE
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 a workers' compensation attorney's fee award but reversed the portion that included time spent after the merits order establishing fee entitlement, holding that such post-entitlement time cannot be included in the fee predicate.
Time expended after entry of a merits order establishing fee entitlement cannot be included in the attorney's fee predicate, even if necessitated by the employer's resistance to the fee claim.
[1] Time expended by an attorney after entry of a merits order establishing fee entitlement cannot be included in the fee predicate, even if the employer's resistance necessi…
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“Such time, expended here after entry of the merits order in which fee entitlement was established, has been excluded from the fee predicate since the supreme court's ruling in Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1987).”
Court explaining the controlling precedent that prohibits inclusion of post-entitlement time in fee calculations.
An employer and servicing agent appealed a workers' compensation order awarding the claimant's attorney's fee, challenging both the amount and the inc…
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
ALLEN, Judge.
The employer/servicing agent appeal a workers’ compensation order awarding payment of the claimant’s attorney’s fee.
We conclude that the amount awarded is not excessive, except insofar as it encompasses time spent establishing the amount of the fee. Such time, expended here after entry of the merits order in which fee entitlement was established, has been excluded from the fee predicate since the supreme court’s ruling in Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1987).
See, e.g., Regal Wood Products v. Baschansci, 603 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dobbs v. Suncoast Acoustics, 590 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Even if these additional hours were necessitated by the employer/servicing agent’s resistance, so that the claimant’s attorney had to spend more tiriie in proving the hours expended in obtaining the merits award, the fee predicate may not encompass this additional time as it ultimately pertains only to the amount of the fee. We therefore affirm the fee award except as to the inclusion of time expended after the merits award and entitlement ruling, and reverse as to this aspect of the award. We remand for a fee award at the hourly rate established in the appealed order, but without inclusion of the prohibited hours.
WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. State, 646 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…a. 3d DCA 1993). Therefore, defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to establish that his failure to report following furlough was justifiable or excusable thus rendering his violation of the furlough agreement involuntary. Jackson v. State, 639 So. 2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.…
-
Pullen Bros. & Travelers v. Smith, 661 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…spent on the case. The E/C is not responsible for payment for time spent by claimant’s counsel in establishing the amount of the fee. Crit-tenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351, 353 (Fla.1983); Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress v. Williams, 639 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “Even if these additional hours were necessitated by the [E/C’s] resistance, so that the claimant’s attorney had to spend more time in proving the hours expended in obtaining the merits award, the fee predicate may not encompass…
Authorities Cited
- Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987)
- Dobbs v. Suncoast Acoustics & Claims Ctr., 590 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Regal Wood Prods. & Hewitt & Assocs. v. Baschansci, 603 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)