Machacon v. Velda Farms Dairy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Machacon v. Velda Farms Dairy

632 So. 2d 93, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 411, 1994 WL 24090

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1994

DocketNo. 92-2746

StatusPublished

This text of 632 So. 2d 93 (Machacon v. Velda Farms Dairy) 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

Machacon v. Velda Farms Dairy, 632 So. 2d 93, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 411, 1994 WL 24090 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Judge.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order, contending that a greater attorney’s fee should have been awarded under section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). In computing the fee the judge declined to consider certain benefits, including the emergency MRI and Dr. Ennis’s authorization which were discussed in Machacon v. Velda Farms Dairy, 619 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Payment for the MRI and authorization of Ennis were not timely provided, and these benefits should have been included in the predicate for an attorney’s fee under section 440.34(3)(b). We therefore reverse the appealed order in this regard, and remand for an attorney’s fee on the MRI and Ennis’s authorization. The judge may also consider whether any of the various other benefits directly resulted from the attorney’s efforts in connection with these claims.

ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

ALLEN, Judge.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order, contending that a greater attorney’s fee should have been awarded under section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). In computing the fee the judge declined to consider certain benefits, including the emergency MRI and Dr. Ennis’s authorization which were discussed in Machacon v. Velda Farms Dairy, 619 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Payment for the MRI and authorization of Ennis were not timely provided, and these benefits should have been included in the predicate for an attorney’s fee under section 440.34(3)(b). We therefore reverse the appealed order in this regard, and remand for an attorney’s fee on the MRI and Ennis’s authorization. The judge may also consider whether any of the various other benefits directly resulted from the attorney’s efforts in connection with these claims.

ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 93, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 411, 1994 WL 24090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/machacon-v-velda-farms-dairy-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack