Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch

61 So. 3d 1160, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5352, 2011 WL 1415213

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 2011

DocketNo. 1D10-5592

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 61 So. 3d 1160 (Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch) 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

Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch, 61 So. 3d 1160, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5352, 2011 WL 1415213 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The employer and carrier appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that Claimant did not intentionally misrepresent his condition in an effort to obtain workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant cross-appeals the JCC’s limitation of his attorney’s fee to a guideline fee. We AFFIRM without comment the employer/carrier’s appeal. Because the JCC reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the fee, we DISMISS the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Se. Recycling v. Cottingim, 728 So.2d 342, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (dismissing “portion of order which determines entitlement to attorney’s fees but reserves jurisdiction to set the amount of the fee” for lack of jurisdiction). See also Wometco Enters. v. Cordoves, 650 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding order adjudicating entitlement to attorney’s fee but reserving jurisdiction on amount was “neither a final order not an appealable non-final order”).

DAVIS, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The employer and carrier appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that Claimant did not intentionally misrepresent his condition in an effort to obtain workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant cross-appeals the JCC’s limitation of his attorney’s fee to a guideline fee. We AFFIRM without comment the employer/carrier’s appeal. Because the JCC reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the fee, we DISMISS the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Se. Recycling v. Cottingim, 728 So.2d 342, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (dismissing “portion of order which determines entitlement to attorney’s fees but reserves jurisdiction to set the amount of the fee” for lack of jurisdiction). See also Wometco Enters. v. Cordoves, 650 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding order adjudicating entitlement to attorney’s fee but reserving jurisdiction on amount was “neither a final order not an appealable non-final order”).

DAVIS, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 3d 1160, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5352, 2011 WL 1415213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zampell-refractories-inc-v-welch-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack