Sistrunk v. City of Dunedin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sistrunk v. City of Dunedin

715 So. 2d 375, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10412, 1998 WL 476209

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 17, 1998

DocketNo. 97-4368

StatusPublished

This text of 715 So. 2d 375 (Sistrunk v. City of Dunedin) 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

Sistrunk v. City of Dunedin, 715 So. 2d 375, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10412, 1998 WL 476209 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judge of compensation claims did not abuse her discretion in awarding an attorney’s fee of $14,601, an amount within the range supported by expert testimony. See Rolle v. Metropolitan Dade County, 642 So.2d 100, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that when calculating a statutory attorney’s fee, the present value of future benefits “is strictly a matter of proof to be established by evidence and expert testimony.”).

Appellant’s reliance on Tri-State Motor Transit Co. v. Judy, 566 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), Locke v. Rooney, 508 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and School Board of Collier County v. Salter, 457 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), is misplaced. Before Rolle these cases could have been read to require judges of compensation claims to calculate the present value of future benefits themselves. But our decision in Rolle renders any such calculation by a judge of compensation claims unnecessary. Calculation of present value of future benefits by the judge of compensation claims in the present case was superfluous.

It is necessary to reduce a stream of future payments to present value before calculating a statutory fee, to be sure, as the [376]*376attorney who was the employer’s expert witness testified. The same expert also testified that a statutory fee would be in the range of $14,000 to $16,000. While the employer’s expert did not explain how he reduced the stream of future payments to present value, neither did claimant’s attorney cross-examine the expert on the method he used to calculate the present value.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judge of compensation claims did not abuse her discretion in awarding an attorney’s fee of $14,601, an amount within the range supported by expert testimony. See Rolle v. Metropolitan Dade County, 642 So.2d 100, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that when calculating a statutory attorney’s fee, the present value of future benefits “is strictly a matter of proof to be established by evidence and expert testimony.”).

Appellant’s reliance on Tri-State Motor Transit Co. v. Judy, 566 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), Locke v. Rooney, 508 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and School Board of Collier County v. Salter, 457 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), is misplaced. Before Rolle these cases could have been read to require judges of compensation claims to calculate the present value of future benefits themselves. But our decision in Rolle renders any such calculation by a judge of compensation claims unnecessary. Calculation of present value of future benefits by the judge of compensation claims in the present case was superfluous.

It is necessary to reduce a stream of future payments to present value before calculating a statutory fee, to be sure, as the [376]*376attorney who was the employer’s expert witness testified. The same expert also testified that a statutory fee would be in the range of $14,000 to $16,000. While the employer’s expert did not explain how he reduced the stream of future payments to present value, neither did claimant’s attorney cross-examine the expert on the method he used to calculate the present value.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 So. 2d 375, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10412, 1998 WL 476209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sistrunk-v-city-of-dunedin-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack