BRENDA FEINBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a workers' compensation judge's attorney fee award of $13,440 because the judge failed to adequately explain how the award was calculated or support key findings regarding excessive hours and hourly rates with evidence in the record.
A workers' compensation judge must clearly articulate findings supporting an attorney fee award with record evidence, including the basis for determining reasonable hourly rates and hours worked.
[1] A workers' compensation judge must support attorney fee awards under section 440.34 with clear findings articulating how the award was calculated, including the basis for…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrenda Feinberg sought workers' compensation benefits from Miami-Dade County. The judge of compensation claims awarded attorney's fees of $13,440 but …
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 Hourly Rate Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
We find a lack of support in the record for the JCC’s award of attorney’s fees. Although the JCC considered the various statutory factors of section 440.34, Florida Statutes (1997), there is no indication of how the award of $13,440.00 was derived. The findings that 76.7 of the claimant attorney’s hours were excessive and unrelated to the benefits obtained, and that the claimant’s lead attorney’s hourly rate should be $200 are unsupported by the record. Moreover, there is no indication of an appropriate rate for the other attorneys working on the case other than the lead counsel.
The JCC is to clearly articulate any additional findings in her final order. See Smith v. U.S. Sugar Corporation, 624 So. 2d 315, 318-19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(JCC’s determination of hours spent on the case unsupported by the record; hourly rate established by JCC based on what normally is commanded in the district without record support reversed, and case remanded for additional findings); G & A Building Maintenance v. Makuski, 510 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(JCC’s finding of reasonable hourly rate based on own experience without record support was inappropriate).
The attorney’s fee order is reversed and remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. Woerner Mgmt., 867 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…’s subjective belief and personal experience of what to him seemed reasonable for the amount of time represented by counsel in serving his client. Such an analysis makes informed appellate review impossible. See, e.g., Feinberg v. Miami-Dade County, 788 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reversing the JCC’s finding that 76.7 of the claimant’s attorney’s hours were “excessive and unrelated to the benefits obtained,” because the finding was unsupported by the record); Smith v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 624 So. 2d 315 (Fla…
-
Morris v. Dollar Tree Store & Specialty Risk Servs., 869 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…The rule is well recognized that if the issue to be decided turns on the amount of a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney’s fee, the appellate court’s review standard is whether CSE supports the JCC’s conclusion. See Feinberg v. Miami-Dade County, 788 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Miller v. JFK Mem’l Hosp., 624 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Smith v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 624 So. 2d 315, 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, once the JCC decides, as he did here, that the application of the statutory fac…
-
Jackson v. Ryan's Fam. Steak House & Zurich-American Ins., 27 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…nding); Sanchez v. Woerner Mgmt., Inc., 867 So. 2d 1173, 1174-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing fee award where reduction of time was based on JCC’s subjective belief and personal experience as to what was reasonable); Feinberg v. Miami-Dade County, 788 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reversing JCC’s finding that 76.7 of the claimant’s attorney’s hours were “excessive and unrelated to the benefits obtained,” because finding unsupported by record); see also Makuski, 510 So. 2d 1074. Nevertheless, we have never…
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
- Smith v. U.S. Sugar Corp. & Gallagher Bassett Serv., 624 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- G & A Bldg. Maint. & Sentry Claim Servs. v. Makuski, 510 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)