Automatic Data Processing v. Scarberry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Automatic Data Processing v. Scarberry

412 So. 2d 927, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19774

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1982

DocketNo. YY-395

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 412 So. 2d 927 (Automatic Data Processing v. Scarberry) 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

Automatic Data Processing v. Scarberry, 412 So. 2d 927, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19774 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the deputy commissioner did not set a limitation on the length of time that Scarberry may collect future medical benefits, we construe the order as awarding those benefits “in the manner and for the time provided by law.” See Lake Highland Nursing Home, et al. v. Everett, 397 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Accordingly, we affirm the workers’ compensation order below because it was supported by record evidence.

We note with displeasure the argument presented by counsellor the employer and the Insurance Company of North America regarding future medical benefits. In the initial brief, counsel represented to this Court that the award of future medical care was improper because “the matter of future medical treatment was not placed at issue by stipulation of the parties.” As the claimant’s brief correctly stated, however, the parties’ pre-trial stipulation unmistakably included a claim for “future medical treatment.” In the reply brief, counsel for the employer/carrier conspicuously ignored her earlier misrepresentation of fact. We should not need to remind counsel of the ethical considerations implicated when an attorney advances a defense that is unwarranted, or knowingly makes a false statement of fact. Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp., D.R. 7-102(A)(2), (5). The appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $2,500.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although the deputy commissioner did not set a limitation on the length of time that Scarberry may collect future medical benefits, we construe the order as awarding those benefits “in the manner and for the time provided by law.” See Lake Highland Nursing Home, et al. v. Everett, 397 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Accordingly, we affirm the workers’ compensation order below because it was supported by record evidence.

We note with displeasure the argument presented by counsellor the employer and the Insurance Company of North America regarding future medical benefits. In the initial brief, counsel represented to this Court that the award of future medical care was improper because “the matter of future medical treatment was not placed at issue by stipulation of the parties.” As the claimant’s brief correctly stated, however, the parties’ pre-trial stipulation unmistakably included a claim for “future medical treatment.” In the reply brief, counsel for the employer/carrier conspicuously ignored her earlier misrepresentation of fact. We should not need to remind counsel of the ethical considerations implicated when an attorney advances a defense that is unwarranted, or knowingly makes a false statement of fact. Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp., D.R. 7-102(A)(2), (5). The appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $2,500.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 So. 2d 927, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/automatic-data-processing-v-scarberry-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack