Murray v. MARINERS HEALTH/ACE USA

946 So. 2d 38, 2006 WL 3454786
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 1, 2006
Docket1D06-0475
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 946 So. 2d 38 (Murray v. MARINERS HEALTH/ACE USA) 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
Murray v. MARINERS HEALTH/ACE USA, 946 So. 2d 38, 2006 WL 3454786 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

946 So.2d 38 (2006)

Emma MURRAY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
MARINERS HEALTH/ACE USA, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 1D06-0475.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 1, 2006.
Rehearing Denied January 12, 2007.

*39 Brian O. Sutter, Port Charlotte; and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

John R. Darin, II, of Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The claimant, Emma Murray, appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC) order awarding an attorney's fee in strict accordance with the guideline formula set forth in section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (2005). The appellant's constitutional challenges to this statute, as significantly amended in 2003, were considered and rejected in our recent decisions in Lundy v. Four Seasons Ocean Grand Palm Beach, 932 So.2d 506 (1st DCA 2006); and Campbell v. Aramark, 933 So.2d 1255 (1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the JCC's award of a reasonable attorney's fee based on the statutory guideline formula. See Wood v. Fla. Rock Indus., 929 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), granting motion for certification, 929 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

As in Wood, Lundy, and Campbell, we certify the following as a question of great public importance:

DO THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 440.34(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2003), CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY ESTABLISH THE PERCENTAGE FEE FORMULA PROVIDED THEREIN AS THE SOLE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF AN ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE AWARDED A CLAIMANT?

We AFFIRM the JCC's order on trial attorney's fees and costs and DENY the motion for appellate attorney's fees. The issues on cross-appeal are affirmed.

WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kauffman v. Community Inclusions, Inc.
57 So. 3d 919 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc.
3 So. 3d 1189 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
Pittman v. Palm Beach County School District
3 So. 3d 1191 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County Fire Rescue
1 So. 3d 1163 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Murray v. Mariner Health
994 So. 2d 1051 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)
Pittman v. Palm Beach County School District
972 So. 2d 1042 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
946 So. 2d 38, 2006 WL 3454786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-mariners-healthace-usa-fladistctapp-2006.