ROBERT BOYD, PETITIONER,
v.
SOUTHEASTERN UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY, BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION, AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS

Fla. | 1965-03-17
No. 33600
THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
172 So. 2d 817 Florida Supreme Court (1965) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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

The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Industrial Commission's decision denying additional attorneys' fees in a workers' compensation case, holding that when compensability is initially controverted, the total benefits ultimately received by the claimant constitute a material element in fixing attorneys' fees, and any interim fee award must be presumptively temporary and interlocutory in nature.


Holding

The Court held that in any case where compensability is initially controverted, the total benefits ultimately received by the claimant constitute a material element in fixing attorneys' fees, and any award for legal services prior to final determination of total compensation payable must be presumptively temporary and interlocutory in nature, permitting additional fee awards based on the ultimate outcome.


Key Quotes

“in any case in which compensability is initially controverted, then the total benefits ultimately received by claimant constitute a material element in fixing fees, and that any award for legal services prior to a final determination of total compensation payable must be, at least presumptively, temporary and interlocutory in nature”

The Court's holding establishing the standard for determining attorneys' fees in controverted workers' compensation claims

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Boyd suffered a back injury in September 1961 and filed a controverted workers' compensation claim in May 1962. The deputy awarded compensation in Dec…

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
DREW, Chief Justice.

DREW, Chief Justice.

The petition for certiorari in this cause contests an order of the Commission reversing an award of attorneys’ fees by the deputy.'

Upon a controverted claim filed May 23, 1962, an initial award was entered in December, 1962, for temporary total and partial disability compensation for the period of time since claimant’s accidental back injury in September 1961, together with penalties, interest and future remedial treatment. The deputy found maximum medical recovery had not been reached at that time and with reference to attorneys’ fees stated only that carrier should “pay claimant’s attorney the sum of $350.00.” Negotiations for settlement culminated in an offer on a “washout” basis of $2500 for claimant plus $500 additional attorneys’ fees.

Counsel for claimant, petitioner in this Court, advised against accepting this offer as, in his opinion, inadequate compensation for the full disability which had become determinable. Claimant then, according to the order of the Commission, discharged his attorney, contacted counsel for carrier on his own behalf, and entered into a stipulation and joint petition for final discharge *818for a lump sum payment of $2500 in addition to benefits previously received, this agreement being subsequently approved by order of March S, 1963.

Based upon notice and hearing including expert, testimony as to the total value of services of counsel for claimant, the deputy on May 23, 1963, awarded an additional fee of $1000. The contentions of the carrier, upheld by the Commission, are that no fee is due for services prior to the order of December 13 since that order awarded a fee without expressly retaining jurisdiction for a further award, and that no fee is due since that date because benefits paid under the later stipulation and order were not “received by the claimant through the efforts of the claimant’s attorney.”

The decision cited to sustain this cpnclusion is that in Pollard v. State Road Department, 151 So.2d 274, Fla.1963, which held additional attorneys’ fees were not properly awarded when permanent partial disability compensation was commenced without further order upon expiration of an award for temporary total disability. The initial order in Pollard awarded attorneys’ fees for legal services “rendered thus far in this proceeding.” It may be arguable that the presence of this language in the order bolsters the decision there that the award of fees was a final and inalterable determination of the value of services rendered in obtaining the finding of compen-sability on a controverted claim. We now believe, however, that in any case in which compensability is initially controverted, then the total benefits ultimately received by claimant constitute a material element in fixing fees, and that any award for legal services prior to a final determination of total compensation payable must be, at least presumptively, temporary and interlocutory in nature.

In Pollard, the reason for rejecting the claim for additional attorneys’ fees was —to use the language of this court — because “ * * * the $850 fee was for benefits to claimant that were voluntarily paid and that an attorney was not necessary to collect them.” That reason is not present here. The award of the deputy in the case at bar was, in our opinion, proper upon the record before him and should be sustained.

The order of the Commission is quashed and the cause remanded for the entry of an order accordingly.

THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Barr v. Pantry Pride, 518 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
    …hieved, we initially agree with the chief commissioner’s finding that counsel is not entitled to a fee based on the permanent total disability benefits. On this point, claimant relies on the holding in Boyd v. Southeastern Utilities Service Company, 172 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1965), which stated that in any case in which compensa-bility is initially controverted, the total benefits ultimately received by the claimant constitute a material element in fixing fees, and any award for legal services prior to a final dete…
  • …ustrial Relations Commission properly affirmed the Judge of Industrial Claims under the particular circumstances of this case on the authority of Ford v. Cunningham-Limp Co., 203 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1967), and Boyd v. Southeastern Utilities Service Co., 172 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1965). We find no departure from the essential requirements of law. ... According, the writ of certiorari is discharged. It is so ordered. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. DEKLE, J., dissents.…
  • Ford v. Cunningham-Limp Co., 203 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1967)
    …mpensation for permanent total disability, but reversed the award of attorneys’ fees. We have measured the liability of the cause for an additional attorneys’ fee against the rules announced in Boyd v. Southeastern Utilities Service Co., Fla. 1965, 172 So. 2d 817, and in Creighton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Fla.1966, 190 So. 2d 762, and find that the evidence supports the conclusion and finding of the deputy commissioner that the substantially increased award, although volunteered and consented to by the emplo…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw