Workers’ compensation — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Judge of compensation claims did not err in finding that claimant was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as a prevailing party — Claimant did not meet burden of showing that her attorney’s efforts achieved acceptance and payment of her claims because record shows that employer/carrier never denied benefits at issue

YVETTE MORGAN, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, and SEDGWICK CMS., Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D19-3077. March 24, 2020. On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Edward R. Almeyda, Judge. Date of Accident: July 16, 2014. Counsel: Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Clinton C. Lyons, Jr. of Morgan Kidd Lyons & Johnson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) Yvette Morgan appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims, finding she was not entitled to attorney’s fees or costs for two petitions she filed in 2018. Morgan asserts the JCC erred because she was the prevailing party in the proceedings below. We disagree.

A claimant who petitions for benefits may recover attorney’s fees when the employer or carrier files a response to the petition denying benefits, the claimant successfully prosecutes her petition with her attorney’s assistance, and at least thirty days elapses from the time the employer or carrier receives the petition and provides the requested benefits. § 440.34(3), Fla. Stat. (2018); see Neville v. JC Penney Corp., 130 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). At issue here is whether Morgan’s attorney successfully prosecuted her petitions. To demonstrate successful prosecution, Morgan had to show that her attorney’s efforts achieved “acceptance and payment of the claim[s].” Mitchell v Sunshine Cos., 850 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Morgan did not meet her burden because the record shows that the Employer/Servicing Agent never denied the benefits at issue. Because it was not her attorney’s successful prosecution of the petitions that achieved the E/SA’s acceptance and payment of her claims, Morgan is not entitled to fees under section 440.34(3)(b). See Franco v. SCI at Palmer Club at Prestancia, 989 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). And because her attorney’s efforts did not lead to the benefits being provided, Morgan is also not entitled to prevailing party costs under section 440.34(3)(b). We, therefore, AFFIRM the JCC’s order finding that Morgan was not entitled to fees or costs. (ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.)