SPIKER'S ALL AMERICAN CUSTOM ACCESSORIES, AND FAWA INSURANCE SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
DANNY SPIKER, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court reversed an attorney fee award of $20,625 because the trial judge improperly included time spent on unresolved claims and time spent proving the fee itself when calculating reasonable attorney fees under Florida's statutory guidelines.
The court held that the $20,625 attorney fee award must be reversed because the judge improperly considered time spent on benefits not yet secured and not reasonably predictable, and time spent proving the fee amount. Attorney fees should be calculated based only on time spent pursuing claims for benefits actually secured or, if the statutory fee would be inequitable, on time expended pursuing secured claims.
[1] A judge of compensation claims may not consider time spent pursuing claims for benefits which have not yet been secured and are not reasonably predictable when determinin…
[2] Time spent proving the amount of an attorney fee cannot be factored into the calculation of a statutory guidelines fee.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the judge improperly took into account time spent pursuing claims for benefits which have not yet been secured and are not "reasonably predictable," and time spent proving the amount of the attorney fee”
Identifies the specific errors in the trial court's attorney fee calculation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant's attorney secured $15,092.75 in workers' compensation benefits. The judge of compensation claims found the statutory guidelines fee would be…
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.
BARFIELD, Judge.
Competent, substantial evidence supports the findings of the judge of compensation claims that the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a reasonable attorney fee, that the amount of benefits secured by the attorney’s efforts is $15,092.75, that the statutory guidelines fee would be $3,013.91, and that a reasonable hourly rate in this ease is $275 per hour. However, the order awarding $20,625 in attorney fees must be reversed because, in determining whether the statutory guidelines fee would be reasonable, the judge improperly took into account time spent pursuing claims for benefits which have not yet been secured and are not “reasonably predictable,” 1 and time spent proving the amount of the attorney fee2. When the pending claims have been resolved, the claimant may seek attorney fees based on the amount of the benefits secured or, if the statutory fee schedule would result in an inequitable fee, on the time expended in pursuing those claims.
REVERSED and REMANDED to the judge of compensation claims for determination of the proper amount of a reasonable attorney fee, taking into account only the time spent pursuing the claims for benefits which were secured by the claimant’s attorney, and the time spent proving entitlement to attorney fees.
MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur. . See the discussion of “reasonably predictable” benefits in International Paper Co. v. McKinney, 384 So. 2d 645 (Fla.1980); Smith v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 624 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Wiseman v. AT v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 569 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Barr v. Pantry Pride, 518 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. den., 525 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1988); Samurai of the Falls, Inc. v. Sul, 509 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., Doug lo Sul v. Samurai of the Falls, Inc., 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1987); Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. Cote, 505 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Prestressed Systems v. Goff, 486 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Samper v. W.B. Johnson Properties, Inc./Holiday Inn, 481 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Polote Corp. v. Meredith, 482 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
. Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987)
- Int'l Paper Co. v. McKINNEY, 384 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1980)
- The Polote Corp. & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Meredith, 482 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Barr v. Pantry Pride, 518 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Prestressed Sys. & Claims Ctr. v. Goff, 486 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Samurai OF THE Falls, Inc. v. Dong Jo SUL, 509 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Gilma Samper v. W.B. Johnson Props., 481 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Smith v. U.S. Sugar Corp. & Gallagher Bassett Serv., 624 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Wiseman v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 569 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Combustion Eng'g v. Cote, 505 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)