Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 9, 2015 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Attorney’s fees — Amount of fees awarded affirmed — Court certifies that its disposition passes on a question certified in a previous case

40 Fla. L.
Weekly D2240b
Top of Form

Workers’
compensation — Attorney’s fees — Amount of fees awarded affirmed — Court
certifies that its disposition passes on a question certified in a previous
case: Whether the award of attorney’s fees in this case is adequate, and
consistent with the access to courts, due process, equal protection, and other
requirements of the Florida and federal constitutions — Whether claimant was
entitled to attorney’s fees incurred in establishing entitlement to fees not
addressed where judge of compensation claims failed to rule on this issue

PIERRE RAYMOND EDMOND, Appellant, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC./ CNA CLAIM
PLUS, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D14-5945. Opinion filed October 2,
2015. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Timothy M.
Basquill, Judge. Date of Accident: August 15, 2012. Counsel: Michael H. Stauder
of Michael H. Stauder, Sr., P.A., Jupiter, for Appellant. H. George Kagan of
Miller, Kagan, Rodriguez & Silver, P.L., West Palm Beach, for Appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals the
award of a $267.12 attorney’s fee payable to Claimant’s attorney by the
Employer/Carrier (E/C). Under the provisions of section 440.34, Florida
Statutes (2012), the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarded the attorney’s
fee based on Claimant’s successful prosecution of a petition for benefits (PFB)
resulting in the payment of $1,335.58 in temporary disability benefits. On
April 22, 2015, after the initial brief was filed in this appeal, this Court
issued an order directing Claimant to show cause why the order on appeal should
not be affirmed based on the decision in Castellanos v. Next Door Co.,
124 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), with an accompanying certification that the
Court is passing upon the same question certified in Castellanos. After
receiving Claimant’s response to the show cause order, this Court issued an
order on May 6, 2015, acknowledging Claimant’s concession that the
constitutional challenges raised in Issues I and III on appeal are controlled
by Castellanos and directing further arguments to the disposition of
Issue II raised on appeal: specifically, the issue of whether the JCC erred by
failing to consider the claim for attorney’s fees to Claimant’s counsel for
establishing entitlement to an attorney’s fee.

With regard to Issue II, Claimant argues that the JCC erred by failing to
award a reasonable attorney’s fee for his efforts necessary to establish
entitlement to the attorney’s fees awarded under section 440.34 (often referred
to as “fees on fees”). The E/C disputes Claimant’s entitlement to “fees on
fees” as well as the amount of any such fee. Notably, the JCC here permitted
Claimant to amend his attorney’s fee claim to include additional fees related
to fee entitlement, but ultimately did not expressly rule on the issue. Without
a ruling, this Court is unable to determine if the JCC considered the claim for
additional fees when he awarded a carrier-paid fee based on a percentage of the
benefits secured under section 440.34. As a result, it is necessary to reverse
and remand for a ruling on this issue. See Betancourt v. Sears
Roebuck & Co.
, 693 So. 2d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (explaining
JCC’s failure to rule on litigated issue is reversible error).

In sum, based on this Court’s decision in Castellanos, we AFFIRM
the order with regard to the constitutional issues raised in Issues I and III
on appeal. In so doing, we certify that our disposition of Issues I and III in
the instant case passes upon the same question we certified in Castellanos.
Id. at 394. See Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 421 n.*
(Fla. 1981). In light of the JCC’s failure to rule, we REVERSE and REMAND the
“fees on fees” issue raised in Issue II. (ROBERTS, C.J., THOMAS and RAY, JJ.,
CONCUR.)

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982