INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
RUTH HYDE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed an award of attorney's fees to an injured worker, holding that the filing and denial of a request for assistance in the informal dispute resolution process does not entitle a claimant to attorney's fees, since the claim was never actually controverted when the employer accepted benefits within the statutory timeframe.
The court held that the filing and denial of a request for assistance does not entitle a claimant to attorney's fees because the request for assistance is part of the informal dispute resolution process, and there must be a successful prosecution of a claim to trigger the attorney's fees provision. Since the claim was never controverted and the employer/carrier accepted the benefits within 14 days of the petition for benefits, attorney's fees were not warranted.
[1] A claimant is entitled to recover attorney's fees from an employer or carrier when the employer or carrier files a notice of denial and the injured person has employed an…
[2] The filing or denial of a request for assistance does not, in itself, entitle a claimant to attorney's fees.
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“[A] claimant shall be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee from a carrier or employer: (b) [i]n any case in which the employer or carrier files a notice of denial with the division and the injured person has employed an attorney in the successful prosecution of his claim”
States the statutory basis for attorney's fees awards in workers' compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1995, the claimant sustained a compensable back injury and received a 14% permanent impairment rating. The employer/carrier began paying permanent …
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 Notice Of Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This appeal and cross-appeal arise from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Claimant attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes, based upon the filing of a notice of denial in response to a request for assistance.
The issue before us on appeal is whether Employer/Carrier’s (hereinafter E/C) denial of Claimant’s “request for assistance” entitles Claimant to attorney’s fees, even though E/C timely paid all benefits following Claimant’s petition for benefits.
In 1995, Appellee (Claimant) sustained a compensable back injury and was assigned a 14% permanent impairment rating. E/C began paying Claimant permanent impairment benefits. Claimant filed a request for assistance pursuant to section 440.191, Florida Statutes, seeking permanent and total disability benefits; in response, E/C filed a notice of denial. Claimant subsequently filed a Petition for Benefits, and E/C accepted Claimant as permanently and totally disabled within the 14-day statutory time frame. See § 440.192(8), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994).
Claimant sought attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes, which provides that a prevailing claimant is generally responsible for payment of his own attorney’s fees, with the following exception:
[A] claimant shall be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee from a carrier or employer:
(b) [i]n any case in which the employer or carrier files a notice of denial with the division and the injured person has employed an attorney in the successful prosecution of his claim_ [Emphasis supplied.]
The request for assistance procedure is part of the informal dispute resolution process. Florida Statute section 440.191(2)(d) exempts employers or carriers from liability for attorney’s fees for services rendered in connection with the Ombudsman’s informal dispute resolution process, unless expressly authorized elsewhere in chapter 440. Neither the filing nor the denial of the request for assistance entitles the JCC to award attorney’s fees. There must be a successful prosecution of a claim.
In Karell v. Miami Airport Hilton/Miami Hilton Corp., 668 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 675 So. 2d 928 (Fla.1996), this court held that a JCC’s jurisdiction in an informal dispute resolution process is limited to proceedings after the filing of a petition for benefits. Fla. R. Workers’ Comp. P. 4.020(u)(w)(a petition for benefits, not a RFA, invokes the JCC’s jurisdiction). E/C accepted Claimant as permanently and totally disabled within 14 days of receiving the petition for benefits. See § 440.192(8), Fla. Stat. Therefore, the claim was never controverted.
REVERSED.
ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zabik v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist. & F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc., 901 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…o the first finding, we agree that a claimant is generally not entitled to attorney’s fees where the request for benefits has never been controverted. See Smith v. Burke Painting, 765 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Integrated Health Servs. v. Hyde, 721 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). With regard to the second finding, we must respectfully disagree because under the proper interpretation of the law, the employer/carrier’s payment of PTD benefits was not timely. Section 440.191(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999),…
-
Smith v. Burke Painting & Ftba Fund, 765 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…In this workers’ compensation appeal, Andrew Smith challenges an order denying his claim for an award of attorney’s fees under section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). Under the authority of Integrated Health Servs. v. Hyde, 721 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), we affirm. Andrew Smith sustained a compensable industrial injury on March 12, 1997, and commenced receiving indemnity benefits thereafter. On April 29, 1997, he filed a request for assistance pursuant to section 440.191, Flor…
-
Ivo Vilches v. City OF Dunedin & Alexsis, Inc., 738 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…a “Request for Assistance” cannot constitute a “claim” for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act as amended in 1994. See Wright v. Industrial Automotive, 662 So. 2d 1321, 1322-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also Integrated Health Servs. v. Hyde, 721 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Sanchez v. Acapulco Plasters & Stucco, 668 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In Baptist Manor Nursing Home, this court was faced with the question of whether a claimant, injured before the effective date of the 1994 amendment…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nydia Karell v. Miami Airport Hilton/Miami Hilton Corp., 668 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)