LEONARDO ERNESTO GOMEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK CRUM, INC., AND BROADSPIRE, 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.
The court held that a Judge of Compensation Claims erred in rejecting a jointly agreed upon attorney's fee and in redirecting excess fees to the claimant.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) errs in rejecting a jointly agreed upon employer/carrier-paid attorney's fee and awarding a fee based solely on the statutory fee sch…
[2] A JCC's subjective and personal experience of what is deemed reasonable is insufficient to rebut a claimant's counsel's sworn affidavit regarding attorney's fees.
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 intelligenceClaimant's counsel sought an attorney's fee, which was jointly agreed upon by the Employer/Carrier. The Judge of Compensation Claims rejected this agr…
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 Sworn Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant, through his counsel, challenges the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) order rejecting a jointly agreed upon Employer/Carrier-paid attorney’s fee, awarding instead a fee based on the statutory fee schedule as set out in subsection 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (2012), and requiring the excess amount be remitted to Claimant personally. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We review for competent, substantial evidence the issue of the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee. See Sanchez v. Woerner Mgmt., Inc., 867 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). As we recently explained in Banegas v. ACR Environmental, Inc., No. 1D17-1251, 2017 WL 5076887 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 6, 2017), “[njeither argument of counsel nor ‘the JCC’s reductions and deletions ... based solely on the JCC’s own subjective and personal experience of what he deemed reasonable’ are sufficient to rebut a claimant’s counsel’s sworn affidavit. See Minerd v. Walgreens, 962 So.2d 955, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).” Because the record before us contains no evidence rebutting Claimant’s counsel’s sworn affidavit or the representations of the Employer/Carrier’s counsel, the JCC erred in deleting the time entries contained within the'affidavit.
As for the redirection of the monies in excess of the statutory fee schedule to Claimant, a JCC is “without authority to redirect the attorney’s fee from counsel to claimant as an exercise of plenary equitable jurisdiction.” Luces v. Red Ventures, 140 So.3d 999, 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (explaining that “chapter =440' limits- the authority of JCCs and does not authorize them to reform the agreements of the parties on their own motion”). Thus, the JCC erred in doing so.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the portion of the order rejecting the agreed upon Employer/Carrier-paid attorney’s fee as well as the portion of the order reforming the stipulation, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEWIS, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willoughby v. Madison Correctional Institute/Division (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Sanchez v. Woerner Mgmt., 867 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Minerd v. Walgreens & Kemper Nat'l Ins. Cos., 962 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Kaheu Luces v. RED Ventures & The Hartford, 140 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)