THE HOME DEPOT AND SEDGWICK CMS (ATLANTA), APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY ALLISON FERREIRA, 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 affirmed the award of permanent total disability benefits but denied the claimant's request for appellate attorney's fees because the motion failed to specify the statutory basis for the award as required by appellate rules.
A party seeking appellate attorney's fees must specify the particular statutory, contractual, or other substantive basis for the award, and a motion citing only a deleted rule and a general chapter reference without identifying the specific section is deficient.
[1] A motion for appellate attorney's fees must specify the particular statutory, contractual, or other substantive basis for the award and cannot rely on deleted rules or ge…
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 intelligence“a party seeking attorney's fees in an appellate court must provide substance and specify the particular contractual, statutory, or other substantive basis for an award of fees on appeal”
The court explained the requirement for specificity in attorney's fees motions, citing United Services Auto. Association v. Phillips.
Home Depot and Sedgwick CMS appealed an award of permanent total disability benefits to Mary Allison Ferreira, a workers' compensation claimant.…
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 Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the award of permanent total benefits below in all respects. However, we deny Appellee/Claimant’s request for appellate attorney’s fees, because the motion is substantively deficient. It cites Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation 4.265, which was deleted in 1997. The motion further cites “chapter 440,” without specifying the particular statutory section and subsection forming the basis for an award of fees in this case. Because the motion fails to comply with the requirement to state the particular basis for the requested award, it is denied. See rule 9.400(b), Fla. R.App. P.; United Services Auto. Association v. Phillips, 775 So. 2d 921(Fla.2000);1 Shuler v. Darby, 786 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur. . The court in Phillips explained that “a party seeking attorney's fees in an appellate court must provide substance and specify the particular contractual, statutory, or other substantive basis for an award of fees on appeal.” Phillips, 775 So. 2d at 922. The Phillips court specifically receded from Salley v. City of St. Petersburg, 511 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1987), to the extent that the Salley opinion had suggested that a court could award appellate fees where a party failed to meet the substantive requirements of rule 9.400(b). See id.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Progressive Express Ins Co v. Med-Union Med. Ctr. (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2011)
Authorities Cited
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Phillips, 775 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2000)
- Salley v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 511 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1987)
- Shuler v. Christa Darby, 786 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)