LEO C. SARDELLA, PETITIONER,
v.
CHAMPION MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
In this workers' compensation case, the Florida Supreme Court addresses whether disputes over division of a jointly-awarded attorney's fee should be resolved in the administrative forum (Industrial Relations Commission/Judge of Industrial Claims) or by the Circuit Court. The court holds that such disputes should be resolved administratively.
Disputes regarding division of attorneys' fees in workers' compensation cases should be resolved in the administrative forum (by the Judge of Industrial Claims and Industrial Relations Commission) rather than by the Circuit Court. The Waldrop v. Miller Moderns precedent requiring Circuit Court resolution is overruled.
[1] Disputes regarding the division of attorneys' fees in workmen's compensation cases should be resolved in the administrative forum.
[2] Judges of Industrial Claims possess the expertise to expeditiously and economically resolve disputes concerning the value of attorneys' fees in compensation cases.
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“disputed issues regarding division of attorneys' fees in cases of this kind should be resolved in the administrative forum of the workmen's compensation act”
Establishes the court's holding that fee division disputes belong in the administrative forum rather than Circuit Court
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Judge of Industrial Claims awarded a joint attorney's fee of $9,700 to the claimant Leo C. Sardella's two attorneys, Irving J. Whitman and Gerald …
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.
In this workmen’s compensation case the Judge of Industrial Claims awarded a joint attorney’s fee of $9,700 for the services of the claimant, Leo C. Sardella’s, attorneys, Irving J. Whitman and Gerald Shapiro. Whitman represented claimant originally, but was replaced by Shapiro. There is a dispute between Whitman and Shapiro as to their respective shares, if any, in the awarded fee of $9,700. At one point in the cause the Industrial Relations Commission, by its order of February 12, 1971, remanded the cause for a determination by the Judge of Industrial Claims of the value of the respective legal services rendered by the two attorneys in the case. The joint award of $9,700 followed, but without a determination of the respective shares of the two attorneys, if any.
The essential question posed in this case is a determination of the value of the respective shares of the two attorneys in the awarded fee since there is an irreconcilable dispute as to the division, and whether the issue should be resolved by the Judge of Industrial Claims, subject to review by the Industrial Relations Commission, or by the Circuit Court.
We have just recently, in the case of Lopez, et al., v. Airlift International Incorporated, et al., Fla., 270 So.2d 1, 1972, agreed with the Industrial Relations Commission that the case of Waldrop v. Miller Moderns, Fla.1961, 136 So.2d 227, should be receded from and disputed issues regarding division of attorneys’ fees in cases of this kind should be resolved in the administrative forum of the workmen’s compensation act.
From a practical standpoint the Industrial Relations Commission and its Judges of Industrial Claims have first-hand knowledge and expertise gained from the flow of litigation in compensation cases as to the value of attorneys’ fees and are in a better position to settle disputes of this kind expeditiously and with less expense than can the Circuit Court in new litigation to resolve the same.
Therefore, the orders below are reversed and the cause is remanded for further *370proceedmgs in accord with the rationale of Lopez, et al., v. Airlift International Incorporated, et ah, supra.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Total Appliance Repairs & Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elliott Nelson, 382 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…repeatedly recognized under the statutory language vesting in the judge (now deputy) “full power and authority to hear and determine all questions in respect to such claims.” § 440.25(1), Florida Statutes. See Sardella v. Champion Manufacturing Co., 273 So. 2d 369 (Fla.1973); Lopez v. Airlift International Inc., 270 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Rich, 220 So. 2d 369 (Fla.1969); Housknecht v. City of Dania, IRC Order 2-3276 (Nov. 15, 1977). But that authority has in each case been exercised…
Authorities Cited
- Waldrop v. Miller Moderns, 136 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1961)
- Lopez v. Airlift Int'l Inc., 270 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)