PULLEN BROTHERS AND TRAVELERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES H. SMITH, 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 a workers' compensation appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal upheld an employer/carrier's challenge to the amount of an attorney's fee awarded to claimant's counsel. The court agreed that 13 hours spent preparing the fee petition and attending the fee hearing should be deducted from the fee award, as these hours pertained to establishing the fee amount rather than obtaining the underlying benefits.
The court held that the attorney's fee award should not include time spent preparing the fee petition or preparing for and attending the fee hearing, as these hours pertain only to establishing the amount of the fee rather than obtaining the underlying benefits. The 13 hours in question (seven for preparation of the fee petition and six for preparation and attendance at the fee hearing) must be deducted from the fee award.
[1] An employer/carrier is not responsible for payment for time spent by claimant's counsel in establishing the amount of an attorney's fee.
[2] Competent substantial evidence in the record may support the amount of an attorney's fee award, even when an expert witness finds the time claimed to be excessive.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“his involvement "in this case from the very first day until the day this man died was necessary due to either the failure on the part of the employer/carrier to initiate appropriate investigative effort or their failure to pay monetary benefits, indemnity benefits that Mr. Smith was entitled to and then their failure to acknowledge the need for psychiatric care and treatment which they ultimately admitted by their willingness to authorize and pay for"”
Establishes that claimant's counsel's involvement in substantive case matters was justified and necessary, supporting the bulk of the fee award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant's attorney, Mr. Smith, spent numerous hours on a workers' compensation case. The employer/carrier had stipulated to the entitlement to an…
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
[*889] KAHN, Judge.
Appellant, the employer/carrier (E/C) in this workers’ compensation claim, challenge an attorney’s fee awarded to counsel for appellee. Appellant first argues that the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in the amount of the attorney’s fee because numerous hours claimed were for time spent unrelated to any of the benefits secured. The E/C presented an expert witness who found the time claimed to be excessive.
The record, however, also contains evidence in the form of testimony given by claimant’s attorney, Mr. Smith, that his involvement “in this case from the very first day until the day this man died was necessary due to either the failure on the part of the employer/carrier to initiate appropriate investigative effort or their failure to pay monetary benefits, indemnity benefits that Mr. Smith was entitled to and then their failure to acknowledge the need for psychiatric care and treatment which they ultimately admitted by their willingness to authorize and pay for_” Accordingly, we find competent substantial evidence to support the amount of the fee, with one exception.
Prior to the hearing, E/C had stipulated to counsel’s entitlement to an attorney’s fee, and such stipulation was noted by the JCC.
Therefore, the only issue at the fee hearing concerned the amount of the fee. Attorney Smith testified that he spent four hours in preparation for the fee hearing, two hours at the hearing, and seven hours in preparation of his petition, which primarily consists of an itemization of time 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 this additional time as it ultimately pertains only to the amount of the fee.” Id.
Therefore, because the JCC erroneously included seven hours for preparation of the fee petition as well as six hours for preparation and attendance at the fee hearing, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings. On remand, the JCC may enter an order awarding claimant’s attorney a fee at the hourly rate established in the previous hearing, with the deduction of the excess 13 hours. See Dep’t of Transp. v. Logan, 645 So. 2d 127, 128-29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
DAVIS, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987)
- Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress & Scott Wetzel Servs. v. Williams, 639 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Jackson v. State, 639 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Dep't of Transportation/Division of Risk Mgmt. v. Logan, 645 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)