UNC AVIATION SERVICES AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID HORNE, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed an award of attorney's fees to an injured worker (claimant) in a workers' compensation case where the employer/carrier attempted to raise a misrepresentation defense but the judge of compensation claims found it was not properly before him. The court held that because the defense was not properly raised and considered, the claimant's permanent total disability benefits were never at issue and could not support an attorney's fees award.
The court held that attorney's fees cannot be awarded based on the value of future PTD benefits when the judge of compensation claims finds that the misrepresentation defense was not properly raised and does not consider it. Because the defense was not properly considered, the PTD benefits were never actually at issue and therefore could not serve as a basis for attorney's fees.
[1] An award of attorney's fees based on the present value of all future permanent total disability benefits is improper when the employer/carrier's misrepresentation defense…
[2] A claimant may be awarded attorney's fees based on the value of future permanent total disability benefits if the employer/carrier files a petition for modification seeki…
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“Because the JCC found that the defense was not properly raised and did not consider it, the claimant's PTD benefits were never at issue and could not be a basis for attorney's fees.”
States the core holding that attorney's fees cannot be based on PTD benefits when the misrepresentation defense was not properly raised or considered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Horne was adjudicated permanently and totally disabled (PTD) in a final order on December 14, 1998. On April 19, 2005, Horne filed a petition fo…
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 Present Value Of Future Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, J.
The employer/carrier (E/C), UNC Aviation Services and Crawford & Company, appeals the award of attorney’s fees to the claimant, David Horne, which includes an award of attorney’s fees for the value of an indemnity for permanent, total disability (PTD) that was awarded in a previous proceeding. We reverse and remand.
The claimant was adjudicated PTD in a final order entered on December 14, 1998. On April 19, 2005, the claimant filed a Petition for Benefits requesting the authorization of a new pain-management specialist in his case.
As part of the pre-trial stipulation, the E/C asserted that the claimant “knowingly and intentionally provided false, incomplete, and/or inaccurate information in pursuit of benefits. Violation of Section 441.105 and 440.09(4), Florida Statutes.” At the final hearing, the judge of compensation claims (JCC) specifically stated that the misrepresentation defense was not properly before him and that he would not consider it in regard to the claimant’s Petition for Benefits. The JCC awarded the claimant’s petition and authorized a new pain-management specialist.
At the hearing on attorney’s fees, the JCC awarded attorney’s fees based on the present value of all future PTD benefits due to the claimant. This award was based on the theory that since the E/C sought to raise a misrepresentation defense, the claimant’s entire future PTD benefits were in danger of being forfeited under the provisions of sections 440.09 and 440.105, Florida Statutes (2005).
This was error. Because the JCC found that the defense was not properly raised and did not consider it, the claimant’s PTD benefits were never at issue and could not be a basis for attorney’s fees. Cf. Smith v. Smith, 927 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Under Valdes v. Galco Construction, 922 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), a claimant may be awarded attorney’s fees based on the value of future PTD benefits on a previous order, if the E/C files a petition for modification seeking to terminate benefits based on misrepresentation. We specifically are not addressing whether a properly raised affirmative defense of misrepresentation would put PTD benefits in danger of termination such that attorney’s fees would be appropriate for the whole value of those benefits.
We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chandler v. Centex Rooney Constr. Co. & Zurich Am. Ins., 15 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…resentation defense. In UNC Aviation Services v. Home, a case that involved a pre-October 1, 2003, date of accident, the e/c also raised a misrepresentation defense; the JCC found it was not properly before him, however, and refused to consider it. 957 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). After finding for claimant on his petition for benefits seeking authorization of a new pain management specialist, the JCC awarded attorneys’ fees based on the value of future benefits that were in danger of being forfeited…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 927 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Valdes v. Galco Constr. & GAB, 922 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)