YVETTE MORGAN
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, AND SEDGWICK CMS
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.
The appellate court affirmed a judge of compensation claims' order denying attorney's fees and costs to a claimant. The court found the claimant's attorney did not successfully prosecute the petitions because the employer/servicing agent never denied the benefits at issue.
No, Yvette Morgan was not entitled to attorney's fees or costs. The court held that to demonstrate successful prosecution, the claimant's attorney's efforts must achieve acceptance and payment of the claims, which did not occur here because the benefits were not denied.
[1] To recover attorney's fees under Florida Statutes section 440.34(3)(b) in a workers' compensation case, a claimant must demonstrate that her attorney successfully prosecu…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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.”
This quote outlines the statutory requirements for recovering attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYvette Morgan sought attorney's fees and costs for two petitions filed in 2018, asserting she was the prevailing party. The Judge of Compensation Clai…
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 Prevailing Party Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
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. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. Sunshine Cos., 850 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Franco v. SCI AT the Palmer Club AT Prestancia & Zurich N. Am., 989 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Neville v. JC Penney Corp., 130 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)