Johnson v. Ocala Geriatric Center

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnson v. Ocala Geriatric Center

695 So. 2d 802, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5126, 1997 WL 244739

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3200

StatusPublished

This text of 695 So. 2d 802 (Johnson v. Ocala Geriatric Center) 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

Johnson v. Ocala Geriatric Center, 695 So. 2d 802, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5126, 1997 WL 244739 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

In this otherwise frivolous appeal of the amount of attorney fees awarded in a workers’ compensation case, we found this observation by the judge of compensation claims (JCC), which we commend to the bench and bar involved in such litigation:

In addition to [consideration of the statutory factors found in section 440.34(1) ], this court has considered the action of the employer/servicing agent throughout the course of this litigation. If concessions and similar steps by employers and carriers to shorten [the] litigation process are not taken into consideration when fees are determined, then the message sent is that once a claimant is represented by counsel, each side should behave in a thoroughly adversarial manner without regard for the needs of the injured employee, or the employer, or the system. In this case, the employer/servicing agent resolved (quite appropriately I would add) the issues before trial and did so without the need for [803]*803any formal discovery beyond the deposition of the claimant.

The JCC’s order is AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

In this otherwise frivolous appeal of the amount of attorney fees awarded in a workers’ compensation case, we found this observation by the judge of compensation claims (JCC), which we commend to the bench and bar involved in such litigation:

In addition to [consideration of the statutory factors found in section 440.34(1) ], this court has considered the action of the employer/servicing agent throughout the course of this litigation. If concessions and similar steps by employers and carriers to shorten [the] litigation process are not taken into consideration when fees are determined, then the message sent is that once a claimant is represented by counsel, each side should behave in a thoroughly adversarial manner without regard for the needs of the injured employee, or the employer, or the system. In this case, the employer/servicing agent resolved (quite appropriately I would add) the issues before trial and did so without the need for [803]*803any formal discovery beyond the deposition of the claimant.

The JCC’s order is AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 802, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5126, 1997 WL 244739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-ocala-geriatric-center-fladistctapp-1997.