WOMETCO ENTERPRISES AND CIGNA INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
IRMA CORDOVES, 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 dismissed an appeal of an order finding that a workers' compensation claimant's counsel is entitled to an attorney's fee but expressly reserving jurisdiction to determine the fee amount. The court held that such an interlocutory order is not appealable under Florida law.
The court held that an order finding entitlement to attorney's fees while reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount is neither final nor appealable as a non-final order, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] An order reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount of an attorney's fee award is not a final order and is not an appealable non-final order.
[2] Appeals of interlocutory orders in workers' compensation cases are controlled by Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation Procedure 4.160(b).
Previewing 2 of 3 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 order of this nature is not appealable”
Establishes the core holding that orders awarding attorney's fees while reserving jurisdiction on amount lack appellate jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter resolving issues relating to the claimant's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, the Judge of Compensation Claims entered an order fin…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After the issues relating to the claimant’s entitlement to benefits were resolved, the Judge of Compensation Claims entered an order which found that claimant’s counsel is entitled to an attorney’s fee award. This order expressly reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the fee. The employer/carrier timely appealed the order to this court.
Appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the order is neither a final order nor an appeal-able non-final order. We agree and dismiss the appeal.
In City of Tampa v. Fein, 438 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), receded from on other grounds, Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (en banc), approved, 514 So. 2d 351, 352 (Fla.1987) and Sunny Pines Convalescent Center v. Walters, 422 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) this court held that an order of this nature is not appealable. These cases were correctly decided and will be followed in this case and in the future. The parties have brought to our attention, however, two cases which appear to be contrary authority on this jurisdictional issue. The issue in State/Sunland Center v. Campbell, 451 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) was the correctness of a finding of entitlement to attorney’s fee. The decision, however, is silent as to whether the order on review also set the amount of the fee and contains no discussion of the jurisdictional issue.
Therefore, Campbell is not dis-positive on the issue of appellate jurisdiction. In Monroe County Sheriffs Department/Board of County Commissioners v. Ruth, 424 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) the majority addressed a number of issues including entitlement to attorney’s fee without discussion of the jurisdictional question. Judge Ervin, dissenting on the jurisdictional issue, objected to the panel reaching the issue of entitlement to an attorney’s fee prior to a determination of the amount. Ruth is of questionable vitality on the jurisdictional issue because the majority did not address it. Further, appeals of interlocutory orders are now controlled by Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation Procedure 4.160(b), which became effective in 1992. This rule does not authorize appeal of a non-final order of this nature. Ruth, to the extent it can be read favorably to appellants’ position on the controlling jurisdictional question, has been impliedly overruled by the adoption of Rule 4.160(b).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN, J., concur. DAVIS, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
SUN Sentinel & Tribune Co. v. Rhina Petrovich, 744 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…pensable, finds that the claimant is entitled to certain benefits, but does not expressly award or determine the amount of those benefits. For that reason, we conclude that the order is not final and appealable. Cf., Wometco Enterprises v. Cordoves, 650 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In addition, although the order does adjudicate the issue of compensability, it is not a nonfinal order appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(C), inasmuch as it does not include the certification…
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. & Comcar Indus., Inc. v. LaPOINTE, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…hich jurisdiction is reserved should the parties fail to reach an agreement as to the amount." Because the amount of the fee was never established, the propriety of the fee award is not an issue presently before us. See Wometco Enters. v. Cordoves, 650 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Hunt v. Hunt, 648 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). But reservation of jurisdiction to decide questions concerning attorney’s fees does not render the order in the main case no…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Monroe, 744 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…Fla. Stat. (1987). But the order does not set the amount of attorney’s fees and is therefore non-final and non-appealable as to attorney’s fees. See Scullin v. City of Pensacola, 667 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Wometco Enters. v. Cordoves, 650 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Employer’s Overload of Dade County v. Robinson, 642 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Clay Hyder Trucking v. Lastinger, 586 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Kolmel Plumbing, Inc. v. Kolmel, 448 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 19…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987)
- City OF Tampa v. Fein, 438 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Sunny Pines Convalescent Ctr. & Hewitt Coleman & Assocs., Inc. v. Walters, 422 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Emil F. Danciu v. Bennett Cohn, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Stone, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Monroe Cnty. Sheriff's Department/Board OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Ruth, 424 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- State OF Florida/Sunland Ctr. & Crawford & Co. v. Blanche Campbell, 451 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)