UTILITY LINES CONSTRUCTION SVC/ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORP., APPELLANTS,
v.
E. STACY CROSBY, 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 held that an order determining entitlement to attorney's fees but reserving the amount is neither a final order nor an appealable nonfinal order, thus the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The employer/carrier appealed an order determining their liability for the claimant's attorney's fees, but the order expressly reserved jurisdiction t…
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 Jurisdiction On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the employer/carrier (E/C) seeks review of a “Final Order Determining Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees.” We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable nonfinal order.
The order on appeal determined that the claimant’s attorney was entitled to a reasonable fee paid by the E/C because the attorney secured permanent total disability benefits for the claimant. The order expressly reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the fee.
The order is not a final order because it does not end the judicial labor on the attorney’s fee issue. The order is not an appealable nonfinal order because it does not determine jurisdiction, venue, or com-pensability. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(b)(1). Thus, the order is “not ap-pealable.” Wometco Enterprises v. Cordoves, 650 So.2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
In response to our order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, the E/C argued that dismissal of the appeal will preclude it from obtaining review of the Judge of Compensation Claims’ determination that the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an award of fees. This argument is without merit because the entitlement determination will be subject to review upon a timely appeal of the final order establishing the amount of the fee award.
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
HAWKES, C.J., and ROWE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erskine v. Erskine, 344 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…connection with her motion for enforcement. The order did not set an amount of fees, and the trial court in fact reserved jurisdiction to make that determination later. We lack the jurisdiction to review that award. Cf. Util. Lines Const. v. Crosby, 35 So. 3d 53, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of an order determining entitlement to a reasonable attorney’s fee but reserving jurisdiction to determine fee amount, “because it does not end the judicial labor on the attorney…
-
Erskine v. Erskine (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…connection with her motion for enforcement. The order did not set an amount of fees, and the trial court in fact reserved jurisdiction to make that determination later. We lack the jurisdiction to review that award. Cf. Util. Lines Const. v. Crosby, 35 So. 3d 53, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of an order determining entitlement to a reasonable attorney’s fee but reserving jurisdiction to determine fee amount, “because it does not end the judicial labor on the attorney…
Authorities Cited
- Wometco Enters. & Cigna Ins. Co. v. Cordoves, 650 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)