Lowry v. CENTRAL LEASING MANAGEMENT, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lowry v. CENTRAL LEASING MANAGEMENT, INC.

18 So. 3d 550, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 6952, 2008 WL 1930055

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 2008

Docket1D07-0141

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 So. 3d 550 (Lowry v. CENTRAL LEASING MANAGEMENT, INC.) 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

Lowry v. CENTRAL LEASING MANAGEMENT, INC., 18 So. 3d 550, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 6952, 2008 WL 1930055 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, C.J.

Brian Lowry, an injured worker, appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) final order awarding Lowry’s lawyer a “reasonable” attorney’s fee in the amount of $1,854.58 based on total benefits secured for Lowry in the amount of $11,045.75. In this as-applied “constitutional” challenge, Lowry contends that the JCC’s application of the percentage formula for calculating fees set forth in section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (2003), denies access to counsel, denies access to courts, and “confiscates” legal time and services because the amount of the fees awarded equates to little more than $16.00 an hour. We are constrained to affirm the JCC’s order in all respects. See Murray v. Mariners Health/ACE USA, 946 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 969 So.2d 1014 (Fla. Oct.30, 2007); Buitrago v. Landry’s, 949 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Lundy v. Four Seasons Ocean Grand Palm Beach, 932 So.2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 939 So.2d 93 (Fla.2006); Campbell v. Aramark, 933 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 944 So.2d 986 (Fla.2006); Wood v. Fla. Rock Indus., 929 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 935 So.2d 1221 (Fla.2006). We find no abuse of discretion in the JCC’s restricting the testimony of Lowry’s attorney’s-fee expert based on the employer/carrier’s relevancy objections and in not imposing attorney’s fees as a sanction against the employer/carrier for alleged misconduct.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

BROWNING, C.J.

Brian Lowry, an injured worker, appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) final order awarding Lowry’s lawyer a “reasonable” attorney’s fee in the amount of $1,854.58 based on total benefits secured for Lowry in the amount of $11,045.75. In this as-applied “constitutional” challenge, Lowry contends that the JCC’s application of the percentage formula for calculating fees set forth in section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (2003), denies access to counsel, denies access to courts, and “confiscates” legal time and services because the amount of the fees awarded equates to little more than $16.00 an hour. We are constrained to affirm the JCC’s order in all respects. See Murray v. Mariners Health/ACE USA, 946 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 969 So.2d 1014 (Fla. Oct.30, 2007); Buitrago v. Landry’s, 949 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Lundy v. Four Seasons Ocean Grand Palm Beach, 932 So.2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 939 So.2d 93 (Fla.2006); Campbell v. Aramark, 933 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 944 So.2d 986 (Fla.2006); Wood v. Fla. Rock Indus., 929 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 935 So.2d 1221 (Fla.2006). We find no abuse of discretion in the JCC’s restricting the testimony of Lowry’s attorney’s-fee expert based on the employer/carrier’s relevancy objections and in not imposing attorney’s fees as a sanction against the employer/carrier for alleged misconduct.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 So. 3d 550, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 6952, 2008 WL 1930055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowry-v-central-leasing-management-inc-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack