40 Fla. L.
Weekly D2240bTop of Form
Weekly D2240bTop 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
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.
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.
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).
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.)
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.)