BURKE'S EAT-A-BITE RESTAURANT AND CNA INSURANCE GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARBARA HODGES, APPELLEE
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.
A workers' compensation case where the employer/carrier initially controverted benefits but later withdrew the notice and agreed to pay temporary total disability and medical treatment. The deputy commissioner reserved jurisdiction on attorney's fees until the claimant reached maximum medical improvement, but the appellate court reversed, holding that attorney's fees must be determined based on benefits already received and those reasonably predictable.
The court held that the deputy commissioner erred in reserving jurisdiction and that attorney's fees must be determined based on benefits already received by the claimant and those which are reasonably predictable, without waiting for the claimant to reach maximum medical improvement. Any future attorney's fees entitlement for permanent benefits would require the claimant to establish anew the requisite grounds under the statute.
[1] A deputy commissioner in a workers' compensation case may not reserve jurisdiction to determine attorney's fees when the claimant has not yet reached maximum medical impr…
[2] Attorney's fees in a workers' compensation case should be determined based on benefits already received by the claimant and those which are reasonably predictable.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We agree with the E/C that the deputy commissioner (DC) erred in reserving jurisdiction, and we remand for a determination of the proper amount of attorney's fees based on those benefits already received by the claimant and those which are "reasonably predictable."”
Establishes the core holding that attorney's fees must be determined based on current and reasonably foreseeable benefits, not reserved for future determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara Hodges suffered a back injury while working for Burke's Eat-A-Bite Restaurant and filed a workers' compensation claim in May 1984. The employe…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees In Workers' Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation case, Barbara Hodges, suffered a back injury while working for the appellant/employer and filed a claim for benefits in May of 1984. The employer/carrier (E/C) initially filed a notice to controvert but, eleven days prior to the scheduled hearing, withdrew the notice, agreed to pay temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and medical treatment, and agreed that claimant was entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee based on the E/C’s controversion of benefits. Approximately 2lk years later, a hearing was held to determine the amount of attorney’s fees, as well as to determine claimant’s average weekly wage and her entitlement to payment of past and future medical bills. Finding that the claimant had not yet reached MMI and was still being paid TTD benefits, the deputy commissioner held that it would be premature to determine the amount of attorney’s fees, and reserved jurisdiction to make a determination at a later date.
We agree with the E/C that the deputy commissioner (DC) erred in reserving jurisdiction, and we remand for a determination of the proper amount of attorney’s fees based on those benefits already received by the claimant and those which are “reasonably predictable.” See Prestressed Systems v. Goff, 486 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Polote Corp. v. Meredith, 482 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The fact that the claimant has not yet reached maximum medical improvement and, therefore, might be entitled to a different type of benefit in the future necessitating further services from her attorney, does not give the DC the authority to reserve jurisdiction to determine attorney’s fees at a later time or, as in Samper v. W.B. Johnson Properties, Inc., 481 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), to award an “interim” fee. Should the claimant seek permanent benefits after reaching maximum medical improvement, her entitlement to further attorney’s fees will depend upon whether she is able to “establish anew any of the requisite grounds under section 440.34(3) in connection with such claim.” Samper, 481 So. 2d at 91.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the DC to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to be paid by the E/C, and to hear further evidence on the matter if necessary.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Polote Corp. & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Meredith, 482 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Prestressed Sys. & Claims Ctr. v. Goff, 486 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Gilma Samper v. W.B. Johnson Props., 481 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)