HRS DISTRICT I AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
JANE R. BEDFORD, 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 employer appealed an attorney fee award to the claimant's attorney. The appellate court reversed the award, finding that while the employer did not deny compensability, the order failed to meet the procedural requirements for awarding fees under the relevant statute, specifically regarding findings of bad faith.
No, an attorney fee award under section 440.34(3)(b) cannot be sustained without a separate hearing addressing bad faith and specific findings of fact on that issue in the order.
[1] An award of attorney fees under section 440.34(3)(c), Florida Statutes, requires that the carrier or employer deny that an injury occurred for which compensation benefits…
[2] An award of attorney fees under section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires a separate hearing addressing the issue of bad faith.
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“the order was not preceded by a separate hearing addressing the issue of bad faith and does not contain “specific findings of fact” on the issue of bad faith, as required by section 440.34(3)(b).”
Establishes the procedural deficiencies in the lower court's order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer sought review of an order awarding attorney fees to the claimant's attorney. The employer argued the award was improper because they neve…
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.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer seeks review of an order awarding an attorney fee to the claimant’s attorney pursuant to section 440.34(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).
The employer argues that the award must be reversed because that statute permits such an award only when the “carrier or employer denies that an injury occurred for which compensation benefits are payable, and the claimant prevails on th[at] issue,” and in this case the employer never denied compensability. See e.g., Teitelbaum Concrete v. Sandelier, 506 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (attorney fees are not available pursuant to section 440.34(3)(c) when the employer and carrier have accepted an accident as compensable and voluntarily paid some benefits).
The claimant concedes that an award may not be sustained pursuant to section 440.34(3)(c).
However, she argues that an award may be sustained pursuant to section 440.34(3)(b). She notes that her motion was based only on that paragraph of the section, and that the citation to paragraph (c) in the order appears to have been merely a scrivener’s error. There is some support in the hearing transcript for such a position.
Nevertheless, we must still reverse because the order was not preceded by a separate hearing addressing the issue of bad faith and does not contain “specific findings of fact” on the issue of bad faith, as required by section 440.34(3)(b).
See, e.g., Shop & Go, Inc. v. Copeland, 549 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (reversing an attorney fee award because section 440.34(3)(b) requires that a separate fact-finding hearing on the issue of bad faith be held before an award may be made); Baron Transport v. Riley, 526 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (reversing an attorney fee award because section 440.34(3)(b) requires that the order awarding a fee contain findings of fact on the issue of bad faith).
The order awarding an attorney fee is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BARFIELD, C.J., WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Teitelbaum Concrete v. Sandelier, 506 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Shop & GO, Inc. v. Copeland, 549 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Baron Transp. & Claims Ctr. v. Riley, 526 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)