Stromas v. Champion International

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stromas v. Champion International

828 So. 2d 495, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15491

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 828 So. 2d 495 (Stromas v. Champion International) 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

Stromas v. Champion International, 828 So. 2d 495, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15491 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, claimant seeks review of an order denying his request for an award of an attorney’s fee. Because the record reflects that claimant’s attorney successfully asserted a claim for medical benefits only, we reverse, and remand with directions that the judge of compensation claims grant the request and award a reasonable fee for the services of claimant’s attorney pursuant to section 440.34(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). We find particularly unpersuasive the hyper-technical effort by the employer/carrier and judge of compensation claims to distinguish the psychological therapy, which was ultimately authorized, from the authorization of a psychiatrist sought by claimant.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, claimant seeks review of an order denying his request for an award of an attorney’s fee. Because the record reflects that claimant’s attorney successfully asserted a claim for medical benefits only, we reverse, and remand with directions that the judge of compensation claims grant the request and award a reasonable fee for the services of claimant’s attorney pursuant to section 440.34(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). We find particularly unpersuasive the hyper-technical effort by the employer/carrier and judge of compensation claims to distinguish the psychological therapy, which was ultimately authorized, from the authorization of a psychiatrist sought by claimant.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

828 So. 2d 495, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stromas-v-champion-international-fladistctapp-2002.