LEONARDO URGUELLES, APPELLANT,
v.
EL OASIS CAFE AND TECHNOLOGY INS. CO., APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 2015-04-15
No. 1D14-5333
Wolf, J., Rowe, J., Swanson, J.
162 So. 3d 1057 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2015)

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court reversed a JCC's reduction of a stipulated attorney's fee in workers' compensation, holding that each separate attorney's fee is independently subject to the 20/15/10 statutory formula, not cumulatively applied across multiple fee agreements.


Holding

Each separate and distinct attorney's fee in workers' compensation is independently subject to the 20/15/10 statutory formula under section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes.


Headnotes

[1] Each separate and distinct attorney's fee in workers' compensation is independently subject to the statutory 20/15/10 fee formula under section 440.34(1), Florida Statute…

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

Key Quotes

“each separate and distinct attorney's fee is subject to the 20/15/10 formula”

Court's holding regarding the proper application of the statutory fee schedule to multiple attorney fee agreements in workers' compensation cases

Facts & Procedural History

Claimant sought approval of a stipulated attorney's fee in a workers' compensation case. The JCC had previously approved another attorney's fee on a l…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred when he reduced a stipulated Claimant-paid attorney’s fee submitted for his approval to ten percent of the monetary value of past benefits secured. Section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that “any attorney’s fee” approved by a JCC must equal 20% of the first $5,000 secured by the attorney, 15% of the next $5,000, and 10% of the remaining benefits secured over $10,000 (the “20/15/10 formula”). The JCC indicated that he reduced the stipulated fee amount under the 20/15/10 formula based on his interpretation that the first $10,000 in benefits secured, to which the percentages of twenty and fifteen percent would apply, had been “exhausted” with the approval of another attorney’s fee on a lump-sum settlement (which were collected by another attorney altogether). The JCC did not, however, have the benefit of our recent decision in Cortes-Martinez v. Pal *1058 metto Vegetable Co., 159 So.3d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), where this Court held that each separate and distinct attorney’s fee is subject to the 20/15/10 formula. Because the reduction here was based on an incorrect interpretation of the application of the 20/15/10 formula, we REVERSE and REMAND for entry of an order approving the stipulated Claimant-paid attorney’s fee.

WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw