Fumigation Department v. Pearson

547 So. 2d 352, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1918, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4690, 1989 WL 91939
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 15, 1989
DocketNo. 88-1135
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 547 So. 2d 352 (Fumigation Department v. Pearson) 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
Fumigation Department v. Pearson, 547 So. 2d 352, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1918, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4690, 1989 WL 91939 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on .appeal of an order of the deputy commissioner adjudicating claimant permanently totally disabled due to exposure to toxic substances. So far as we have been able to determine from appellants’ brief, the issues raised on appeal are (1) there was no support for the deputy’s finding that claimant is permanently totally disabled, (2) that the deputy erred as a matter of law in concluding that claimant’s last injurious exposure occurred while working for the employer ultimately held liable, (3) that the deputy erred in awarding lifetime, around-the-clock attendant care, and (4) that the deputy erred in issuing a lengthy, detailed order, supposedly making improper findings and supposedly issued only for the purpose of inflating an attorney’s fee.

The appellants’ initial brief, filed after this court granted an extension of time, violates Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(5) and 9.210(a)(2) as to length and as to margin width.1 We will not [353]*353discuss the tone of appellants’ briefs, which vent counsel’s frustrations and displeasure with the system, but do little to enlighten as to issues and pertinent facts in this 2,000 page record.

The panel has considered ordering that another brief be filed by appellants but, on reflection, we decline to do so.2 Counsel for appellants is an experienced lawyer who is capable of filing a brief in compliance with the rules. To require refiling will not therefore be instructive or rehabilitative for counsel and will only delay the date that benefits would begin to reach the claimant. After review of the merits, we conclude that no error has been made to appear to support a reversal.

The motion for fees under Section 440.-34(5) is granted. Because this appeal completely failed to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact, appellee is also granted fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes. Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982).

The order below is affirmed.

BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur. JOANOS, J., specially concurs in part and dissents in part.

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

Related

Fumigation Dept. v. Pearson
559 So. 2d 587 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
547 So. 2d 352, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1918, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4690, 1989 WL 91939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fumigation-department-v-pearson-fladistctapp-1989.