Ames Department Store v. Bettingen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ames Department Store v. Bettingen

561 So. 2d 480, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4144, 1990 WL 77399

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2298

StatusPublished

This text of 561 So. 2d 480 (Ames Department Store v. Bettingen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ames Department Store v. Bettingen, 561 So. 2d 480, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4144, 1990 WL 77399 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Employer/carrier seek review of a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant an attorney’s fee predicated on a finding of bad faith. We find no abuse of discretion in the determination of bad faith, and affirm the amount of the fee awarded. In calculating the amount of the fee, the judge of compensation claims considered all of the hours spent by claimant’s counsel both prior to and after the employer/carrier filed its notice to controvert. There is record support for the conclusion that the hours expended by claimant’s attorney were reasonable and necessary for secur[481]*481ing those benefits ultimately obtained for his client.

Affirmed.

SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Employer/carrier seek review of a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant an attorney’s fee predicated on a finding of bad faith. We find no abuse of discretion in the determination of bad faith, and affirm the amount of the fee awarded. In calculating the amount of the fee, the judge of compensation claims considered all of the hours spent by claimant’s counsel both prior to and after the employer/carrier filed its notice to controvert. There is record support for the conclusion that the hours expended by claimant’s attorney were reasonable and necessary for secur[481]*481ing those benefits ultimately obtained for his client.

Affirmed.

SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 So. 2d 480, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4144, 1990 WL 77399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ames-department-store-v-bettingen-fladistctapp-1990.