Murphy White Dairy v. Jordan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murphy White Dairy v. Jordan

377 So. 2d 822, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16190

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 1979

DocketNo. QQ-21

StatusPublished

This text of 377 So. 2d 822 (Murphy White Dairy v. Jordan) 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

Murphy White Dairy v. Jordan, 377 So. 2d 822, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16190 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge the finding of the judge of industrial claims that claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee of $1,000 based upon the fact that benefits accorded claimant by a settlement agreement exceeded the amount originally offered claimant prior to his obtaining counsel. Additional medical examination was voluntarily provided upon request. A prior order approved the parties’ joint petition subject to their stated inability to agree on the amount of an attorney’s fee.

Under the law applicable to this claim, attorney’s fees are regulated by § 440.34(1), Fla.Stat., providing that fees may be recovered in only three instances: (a) where the employer/carrier files notice of controversy; (b) where the employer/carrier declines to pay a claim on or before the 21st day after they have notice of the claim; or (c) where the employer/carrier unsuccessfully resists payment and the injured person employs an attorney and successfully prosecutes the claim. See Creighton v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 190 So.2d 762 (Fla.1962); and Retirement Center v. Eichman, IRC 2-3172 (June 2, 1977).

The record in this case contains no indication that the carrier filed a notice of controversy, or that any claim was filed. Further, it does not show that the employer/carrier unsuccessfully resisted payment of benefits claimed or requested. The order awarding attorney’s fees is accordingly reversed except to the extent of $100.00, the amount as to which the record evidence supports the award of a fee for appearance at claimant’s deposition.

McCORD, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge the finding of the judge of industrial claims that claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee of $1,000 based upon the fact that benefits accorded claimant by a settlement agreement exceeded the amount originally offered claimant prior to his obtaining counsel. Additional medical examination was voluntarily provided upon request. A prior order approved the parties’ joint petition subject to their stated inability to agree on the amount of an attorney’s fee.

Under the law applicable to this claim, attorney’s fees are regulated by § 440.34(1), Fla.Stat., providing that fees may be recovered in only three instances: (a) where the employer/carrier files notice of controversy; (b) where the employer/carrier declines to pay a claim on or before the 21st day after they have notice of the claim; or (c) where the employer/carrier unsuccessfully resists payment and the injured person employs an attorney and successfully prosecutes the claim. See Creighton v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 190 So.2d 762 (Fla.1962); and Retirement Center v. Eichman, IRC 2-3172 (June 2, 1977).

The record in this case contains no indication that the carrier filed a notice of controversy, or that any claim was filed. Further, it does not show that the employer/carrier unsuccessfully resisted payment of benefits claimed or requested. The order awarding attorney’s fees is accordingly reversed except to the extent of $100.00, the amount as to which the record evidence supports the award of a fee for appearance at claimant’s deposition.

McCORD, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 So. 2d 822, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-white-dairy-v-jordan-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack