Florida Power & Light Co. v. Haycraft
| Decision Date | 03 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | AK-391,Nos. AI-59,s. AI-59 |
| Citation | 421 So.2d 674 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Self-insured, Appellant, v. Howard HAYCRAFT, Appellee. |
George F. Taylor, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Howard L. Silverstein of Silverstein & Hellman, Miami, for appellee.
The self-insured employer appeals two workers' compensation orders. One order was entered pursuant to a petition for modification and awarded claimant temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The other order awarded claimant's attorney a fee of $17,500. We agree the deputy commissioner erred in awarding TTD benefits and reverse the modification order in part. We modify the attorney's fee order.
The issue of whether the claimant was entitled to TTD benefits was ripe for determination at the time of the initial hearing on June 16, 1978 and the claimant should have made any claim for TTD or temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits at that time. A claim for TTD benefits matured at the time the claimant was injured. Only PTD or PPD benefits do not mature until claimant reaches maximum medical improvement. Claimant should have made any claims he might have had for TTD or TPD in the pre-trial stipulation and at the June 16, 1978 hearing. No claim for TTD benefits was made in the pre-trial stipulation. Claims for compensation benefits should be determined at a hearing if they are mature and only the determination of immature claims should be postponed until further hearing when they are ripe. The piecemeal litigation of claims after maturity is not permitted. Hunt v. International Minerals and Chemical Corp., 410 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The award of TTD benefits is therefore reversed.
We find no reversible error in the deputy's finding of a changed physical condition and in using psychiatric testimony to support the modification.
Appellant contends that the $17,500 attorney's fee awarded the claimant's attorney is excessive. In his brief, appellee's attorney agrees that the fee is in excess of the approximately $15,000 statutory fee and states that he would not be adverse to a reduction if warranted by the facts and the law. In his order the deputy commissioner states that he has taken into consideration all the factors set forth in § 440.34, Fla.Stat., Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So.2d 454 (Fla.1968), and Orange...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Rinker Materials
...of Transportation and Division of Risk Management v. Greene, 599 So.2d 1368, 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Haycraft, 421 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Hunt v. International Minerals and Chemicals Corp., 410 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We reject claimant's co......
-
Artigas v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
...is not permitted. Hunt v. International Minerals and Chemical Corp., 410 So.2d 640 (Fla.1st DCA 1982), and Florida Power and Light Co. v. Haycraft, 421 So.2d 674 (Fla.1st DCA 1982). Therefore, compensation claims which are not timely litigated may be waived by application of the doctrine of......
-
Fumigation Dept. v. Pearson
...and must indicate the basis for a fee award which departs from the statutory percentage formula. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Haycraft, 421 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the present case the deputy awarded an amount which is nearly three times that which would result from the statut......
-
Olmo v. Rehabcare Starmed/Srs
...So.2d 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Department of Transportation v. Greene, 599 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Haycraft, 421 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Boynton Landscape v. Dickinson, 752 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). "The piecemeal litigation of claims......