Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Porter, AV-173

• Decision Date: 08 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. AV-173,AV-173
• Parties: COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Elliott L. PORTER, (Deceased) Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 125

452 So.2d 125

COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Elliott L. PORTER, (Deceased) Appellee.

No. AV-173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

June 8, 1984.

Bernard J. Zimmerman of Sheffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, Orlando, for appellant.

Peter S. Schwedock of Pelzner, Schwedock, Finkelstein & Klausner, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Commercial Carrier Corporation appeals the Deputy Commissioner's order dated September 20, 1983, awarding claimant's attorney $27,500.00 in attorneys fees, complaining that the order is inadequate to support the award. We agree.

In an earlier appeal, Commercial Carriers, Inc., v. Porter, 424 So.2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) this Court reviewed an order in which the Deputy Commissioner had, among other things, awarded claimant's attorney a fee of $36,500.00 based on a finding that claimant's attorney had obtained $90,000 in benefits for claimant. In that appeal, we reversed and remanded the award of $36,500 in attorney's fees expressly finding that there was not competent substantial evidence to support a finding that claimant's counsel had obtained $90,000.00 in benefits and implicitly directing the Deputy Commissioner to determine what amount of benefits obtained by counsel's efforts could be supported by such evidence. The Deputy Commissioner, in entering the order now being reviewed, ¹ apparently failed to understand the directive set forth in our opinion.

In his new order, the Deputy Commissioner did reduce the amount of the fee from $36,500 to $27,500. It is still, however, totally unclear as to what amount of benefits the Deputy Commissioner based his $27,500 award in that the order contains no new modified finding of the benefits received as a result of the representation by claimant by claimant's attorney. In the order, the Deputy Commissioner simply stated that he had "considered the benefits in light of the District Court of Appeal's decision, as well as all the findings made in the Order of September 2, 1981," and awarded $27,500 in attorney's fees.

In addition, there is confusion in the two numbered findings of the order on appeal. In paragraph one, the order states that $36,500 of the original award was based on 175 hours spent prosecuting the claim, exclusive of certain benefits reversed by our earlier opinion involving American Hospital or Dr. Paul Rivet. Nonetheless, in paragraph two, the DC awarded $27,500 in attorney's fees based on both the "benefits" obtained, without quantifying them, and the findings of the September 1981 order (which had been set out as the employer's tenacity in resisting the claim; the complexity of the issues; the time and labor involved; the fact a great contingency was involved; and claimant's attorney's expertise.)

The order being reviewed does not contain proper findings so as to permit an orderly review, nor does it advise the parties or the appellate court of the legal logic indulged in by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner incorporated the factors from Lee Engineering and Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So.2d 454 (Fla.1968) which he had considered in the 1981 order, and stated that he had found sufficient evidence to indicate that claimant's attorney had expended 175 hours on the case. This Court, however, having reversed solely on the grounds...