Feinberg v. Miami-Dade County

788 So. 2d 417, 2001 WL 760231
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 9, 2001
Docket1D00-2565
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 788 So. 2d 417 (Feinberg v. Miami-Dade County) 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
Feinberg v. Miami-Dade County, 788 So. 2d 417, 2001 WL 760231 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

788 So.2d 417 (2001)

Brenda FEINBERG, Appellant,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY and Miami-Dade County Risk Management Division, Appellees.

No. 1D00-2565.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 2001.

Martha Fornaris, Daniels, Kashtan, Fornaris, & Oramas, P. A., Coral Gables; Jay M. Levy, Jay M. Levy, P. A., Miami, for Appellant.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Attorney, and Edward Z. Shafer, Assistant County Attorney, Miami, for Appellees.

POLSTON, J.

We find a lack of support in the record for the JCC's award of attorney's fees. Although the JCC considered the various statutory factors of section 440.34, Florida Statutes (1997), there is no indication of how the award of $13,440.00 was derived. The findings that 76.7 of the claimant attorney's hours were excessive and unrelated to the benefits obtained, and that the claimant's lead attorney's hourly rate should be $200 are unsupported by the record. Moreover, there is no indication of an appropriate rate for the other attorneys working on the case other than the lead counsel.

The JCC is to clearly articulate any additional findings in her final order. See Smith v. U.S. Sugar Corporation, 624 So.2d 315, 318-19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(JCC's determination of hours spent *418 on the case unsupported by the record; hourly rate established by JCC based on what normally is commanded in the district without record support reversed, and case remanded for additional findings); G & A Building Maintenance v. Makuski, 510 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(JCC's finding of reasonable hourly rate based on own experience without record support was inappropriate).

The attorney's fee order is reversed and remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED. ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Neville v. J.C. Penney Corp.
135 So. 3d 525 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Jackson v. Ryan's Family Steak House
27 So. 3d 90 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Morris v. Dollar Tree Store
869 So. 2d 704 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Sanchez v. Woerner Management, Inc.
867 So. 2d 1173 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
788 So. 2d 417, 2001 WL 760231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feinberg-v-miami-dade-county-fladistctapp-2001.