Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Rhonda L. SMYTH, Appellant, v. K-MART CORPORATION, and Cambridge Integrated Ser

BARFIELD, J.

With the exception of the finding regarding the fee rate customarily charged in the locality for similar services, competent substantial evidence supports the factual findings in the appealed order awarding attorney fees to the claimant's counsel. In response to the verified petition and affidavit in which the claimant's counsel stated that the customary fee rate was $250 per hour for similar services, the employer/carrier presented no evidence, only an unsworn memorandum and counsel's argument at the hearing. All other issues raised in this appeal are without merit. The order is REMANDED for a recalculation of the attorney fee, using the fee rate of $250 per hour, but in all other respects, the order is AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, J., concurs. WOLF, C.J., concurs with written opinion.

WOLF, C.J., Concurring.

Absent the holdings in Morris v. Dollar Tree Store, 869 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Sanchez v. Woerner Management, Inc., 867 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), I would affirm the entire order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC). The JCC has sufficient expertise to determine the reasonable hourly rate to be awarded to the attorney. In light of these previous holdings, however, I am constrained to concur in the decision of the majority.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SMYTH v. K-MART CORP
(Jul 6, 2005)