Kaufman v. Walgreens

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kaufman v. Walgreens

817 So. 2d 1085, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 2002 WL 1285568

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 2002

DocketNo. 1D02-0428

StatusPublished

This text of 817 So. 2d 1085 (Kaufman v. Walgreens) 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

Kaufman v. Walgreens, 817 So. 2d 1085, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 2002 WL 1285568 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harvey Kaufman appeals an award of attorney’s fees to him in this workers’ compensation matter. The parties and the Judge of Compensation Claims have certified that no transcript of the hearing can be prepared and that efforts to reconstruct the evidence have been unsuccessful. We must therefore reverse and remand the cause for a hearing de novo. Arnold Lumber Co. v. Harris, 469 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bay Medical Center v. Haynes, 667 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). It is noted that the order on appeal also awarded a fee to the law firm of Lloyd, Hoskins & Pierce, P.A., which did not appeal or join in Kaufman’s appeal. Accordingly, that portion of the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

WOLF, KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Harvey Kaufman appeals an award of attorney’s fees to him in this workers’ compensation matter. The parties and the Judge of Compensation Claims have certified that no transcript of the hearing can be prepared and that efforts to reconstruct the evidence have been unsuccessful. We must therefore reverse and remand the cause for a hearing de novo. Arnold Lumber Co. v. Harris, 469 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bay Medical Center v. Haynes, 667 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). It is noted that the order on appeal also awarded a fee to the law firm of Lloyd, Hoskins & Pierce, P.A., which did not appeal or join in Kaufman’s appeal. Accordingly, that portion of the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

WOLF, KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

817 So. 2d 1085, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8237, 2002 WL 1285568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-walgreens-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack