AMITTON CHERY, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHEAST SERVICE CORP. AND WAUSAU INSURANCE CO., 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.
Claimant's attorney obtained a compensable benefit under section 440.34 by securing authorization for a pain clinic evaluation, entitling the claimant to an award of attorney's fees despite the benefit not being monetarily measurable.
An attorney obtains a benefit qualifying for attorney's fees under section 440.34 when the attorney successfully secures authorization for medical evaluation, even if the benefit is not monetarily measurable.
[1] An attorney's successful procurement of non-monetary benefits, such as authorization for medical evaluation, constitutes a benefit qualifying for attorney's fees under se…
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“It is reasonable also to conclude that 'benefits' need no longer refer only to controverted monetary compensation benefits obtained by completing a successful prosecution of a claim. Instead, for example, the consideration of 'benefits resulting to the claimant' under factor (l)(d) of the statute may encompass benefits, monetary or otherwise, reasonably accruing to a claimant who seeks legal advice on his rights under the statute.”
Court's interpretation of what constitutes a 'benefit' under section 440.34
Claimant Chery's attorney filed a claim for authorization of a pain clinic evaluation, which the carrier granted. The workers' compensation order init…
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
PER CURIAM.
Claimant Amitton Chery appeals a workers’ compensation order that denies his request for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 440.34, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). The order ruled that although the attorney was successful in obtaining authorization for an evaluation at a pain clinic after filing a claim for such, this was not a monetarily measurable benefit to the claimant. According to a letter from the carrier’s attorney to Claimant’s attorney, the carrier’s authorization for claimant to obtain such an evaluation remained in effect as of the hearing on this request.
We hold that Claimant’s attorney did in fact obtain a benefit for Claimant that meets the requirements of section 440.34. See Robinson v. Howard Hall Co., 219 So. 2d 688 (Fla.1969); State of Florida/Sunland Center v. Campbell, 451 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); East Coast Tire Co. v. Denmark, 381 So. 2d 336, 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (“It is reasonable also to conclude that ‘benefits’ need no longer refer only to controverted monetary compensation benefits obtained by completing a successful prosecution of a claim. Instead, for example, the consideration of ‘benefits resulting to the claimant’ under factor (l)(d) of the statute may encompass benefits, monetary or otherwise, reasonably accruing to a claimant who seeks legal advice on his rights under the statute.”) Cf. The Law Office of James E. Dusek, P.A. v. T.R. Enterprises, 19 Fla.L.Weekly D1396, corrected, 644 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings on the request for attorney’s fees.
ZEHMER, C.J., and BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Hosp. v. Desiree Taylor (Boen), 784 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…elay the Claimant found alternative means by which to improve her condition through bike riding.” The medical evaluation she received was itself “a benefit for Claimant that meets the requirements of section 440.34.” Chery v. Southeast Serv. Corp., 644 So. 2d 148, 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). See Gulledge v. Dion Oil Co., 605 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“Carrier’s refusal to timely accept any financial responsibility regarding the hernia injury for which Claimant was treated ... was sufficiently broad t…
-
Brown v. Jupiter Hosp. & Sedgwick James of Fla., Inc., 695 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…luded any time spent on proving it. The law is clear that a claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee based upon the benefits obtained in the successful prosecution of a claim. § 440.34(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990); Chevy v. Southeast Serv. Corp., 644 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (although obtaining authorization for evaluation at a pain clinic was not a monetarily measurable benefit to claimant, it nevertheless was a benefit that should be considered in an attorney’s fee award). Consequently, the JCC err…
Authorities Cited
- E. Coast Tire Co. & the Home Ins. Co. v. Denmark, 381 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Thomas v. First Nat'l Bank OF Tampa, 219 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1969)
- State v. Sams, 644 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- State OF Florida/Sunland Ctr. & Crawford & Co. v. Blanche Campbell, 451 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)