VICTOR SANCHEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
WOERNER MANAGEMENT, INC. & ATLANTIC MUTUAL CO., 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.
Victor Sanchez challenged an attorney fee award in a workers' compensation case where the judge of compensation claims reduced his counsel's claimed hours by nearly half. The appellate court reversed, holding that the fee reduction lacked any competent, substantial evidentiary support and remanded for entry of the full requested fee.
The fee reduction was reversed because it lacked any evidentiary support. The court remanded with directions for the judge to enter the full requested fee of 137.1 hours at $225 per hour, and held that the unsworn memorandum submitted by the employer/carrier had no evidentiary value and should not have been admitted.
[1] A judge of compensation claims cannot reduce attorney hours without competent, substantial evidence supporting the reduction.
[2] A reduction in attorney hours by a judge of compensation claims is improper when it rests solely on the judge's subjective belief and personal experience.
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“no evidence was submitted in behalf of the numerous itemized reductions”
Establishes the fundamental deficiency: the JCC made reductions without any evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez's counsel submitted a fee petition for 137.1 hours at $225 per hour in a workers' compensation case. The judge of compensation claims reduced …
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 Evidentiary Value cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claimant, Victor Sanchez, challenges the reasonableness of an attorney fee awarded him in a workers’ compensation case in which the judge of compensation claims (JCC) reduced by nearly half the hours that claimant’s counsel represented he reasonably expended in securing benefits on behalf of his client. Because we conclude the order is utterly lacking any competent, substantial evidence in support of the reduction, we reverse the attorney fee ordered and remand the case with directions for the JCC to enter a fee in the requested amount of 137.1 hours times the hourly rate of $225.1
The most telling deficiency in the fee awarded is that no evidence was submitted in behalf of the numerous itemized reductions. Appellee, the employer/carrier, made no effort to cross-examine claimant’s lawyer regarding the reasonableness of the fee he submitted for approval. The decreases appear to rest entirely upon the JCC’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. 1st DCA 1993) (reversing the JCC’s conclusion that $150 was the hourly rate claimants’ attorneys usually commanded in his district, because the only evidence was testimony that $200 was a reasonable rate, and the JCC is bound to resolve conflicts based upon evidence of record); G & A Bldg. Maint. v. Makuski, 510 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (reversing the JCC’s reduction of the hours expended by claimant’s counsel from 43.9 hours to 35 hours, because there was no record support for the reduction).
The employer/carrier attempts to justify the fee awarded by pointing out it submitted a memorandum of law into evidence contesting certain of the billing items supporting the fee petition. We agree with appellant that the unsworn memorandum had no evidentiary value, and therefore should not have been admitted as an exhibit. It is in the nature of a pleading and not an evidentiary document.2
REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
ERVIN, BARFIELD and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR. . Claimant does not dispute the amount of the hourly fee.
. See Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation Procedure 4.144(c), which states: "Within 20 days after the verified petition is served, the opposing party or parties shall respond to the petition and shall include a recitation of all matters controverted in the verified petition which are in dispute.” The consequence of a party’s failure to file a timely response to the petition can result in the acceptance of the allegations in the petition as true. See rule 4.144(d), and Florida Administrative Code rule 60Q-6.124(3)(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Morris v. Dollar Tree Store & Specialty Risk Servs., 869 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…s are unrelated to the benefits secured, the JCC shall identify with specificity the time entries for which compensation is denied, or otherwise award fees based on the number of hours set out in the fee petition. See Sanchez v. Woerner Mgmt., Inc., 867 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Bryant v. Publix Super Markets, 786 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Appellant next assails the fee ordered as not supported by competent, substantial evidence (CSE), pointing out that her expert, Mr. Smith, the only witness off…
-
Epstein v. Precision Response Corp., 883 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…688 (Fla.1999); Qubty v. Nagda, 817 So. 2d 952, 957-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the facts supporting the issues of arbitration were disputed and the trial court should have held an eviden-tiary hearing to resolve them. See Sanchez v. Woemer Mgmt., Inc., 867 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that an unsworn memorandum is a pleading and not an evidentiary document; therefore, it had no evidentiary value and should not have been admitted as an exhibit). We accordingly reverse and remand for the trial court to…
-
Hale v. Shear Express, Inc., 946 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…he findings made by the judge of compensation claims is supported by competent substantial evidence. Instead, they appear to have been based on the judge’s subjective belief and personal experience. This was error. See Sanchez v. Woemer Mgmt., Inc., 867 So. 2d 1173, 1174-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing reductions in hours identified by claimant’s attorneys as reasonably expended because the reductions were not supported by competent substantial evidence but, instead, “appealed] to rest entirely upon the JCC’…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 16 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)
- Feinberg v. Miami-Dade Cnty. & Miami-Dade Cnty. Risk Mgmt. Div., 788 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)