Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge

Decision Date21 March 1994
Docket NumberNo. 92-4304,92-4304
Citation634 So.2d 720
Parties19 Fla. L. Weekly D635 KRAFT DAIRY GROUP and Ideal Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Larry R. SORGE, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert L. Teitler of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, Miami, for appellants.

Warren Brown of Ress, Mintz & Truppman, P.A., North Miami, for appellee.

WEBSTER, Judge.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer and carrier seek review of an order awarding a fee to claimant's counsel for services rendered in opposition to a motion for modification. Because we conclude that the facts of this case do not support an attorney fee award pursuant to the applicable statute, we reverse.

Claimant suffered a compensable injury in 1983. In 1986, he was awarded permanent total disability benefits and psychiatric and attendant care. In 1991, the employer and carrier filed a motion for modification, asserting that claimant was no longer permanently and totally disabled; that he no longer required attendant care; and that he had failed to obtain any type of psychiatric care for more than two years. (At the hearing, counsel for the employer and carrier amended the motion to request only a determination of whether, during a period while claimant was the subject of surveillance, claimant was permanently and totally disabled and in need of attendant care.) The judge of compensation claims denied the motion for modification, reserving jurisdiction to determine whether claimant's counsel was entitled to an award of attorney fees.

At the attorney fee hearing, the employer and carrier argued that the fee statute in effect at the time of claimant's injury applied; that, pursuant to the applicable statute, a fee could be awarded only if the "carrier ha[d] acted in bad faith ... and the injured worker ha[d] suffered economic loss"; and that the evidence would not sustain a finding of either "bad faith" or "economic loss." Counsel for claimant argued that the fee statute in effect at the time of the hearing applied, and that that statute expressly provided for an award when the claimant prevails in a modification proceeding; that the employer and carrier failed timely to raise as a defense the unavailability of a fee award in modification proceedings pursuant to the statute in effect at the time of the injury; or, alternatively, that the evidence would sustain findings of "bad faith" and "economic loss" for purposes of the statute in effect at the time of the injury. Although not expressly set forth in the order, it is apparent that the judge of compensation claims believed that the version of the fee statute in effect at the time of claimant's injury applied. He concluded that the employer and carrier had "acted in bad faith" when they filed and prosecuted the motion for modification, and that claimant had "suffered economic loss" because he had been forced to retain counsel and to incur litigation costs in defense of the motion. In light of those conclusions, he found it unnecessary to determine whether the employer and carrier had properly asserted what he referred to as "the defense to the entitlement of an attorney's fee." Having concluded that the employer and carrier had "acted in bad faith" and that claimant had "suffered economic loss," the judge of compensation claims awarded a fee to claimant's attorney.

The judge of compensation claims was correct to apply the fee statute in effect at the time of claimant's injury. Generally (and here), a fee statute impacts the respective rights and responsibilities of the parties. Therefore, it is substantive, and amendments to the statute occurring after a claimant's injury may not be retroactively applied. E.g., WFTL Broadcasting Co. v. Rowen, 480 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Ship Shape v. Taylor, 397...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Stolzer v. Magic Tilt Trailer, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 9, 2004
    ...658 So.2d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); City of Crestview v. Howard, 657 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge, 634 So.2d 720, 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Mueller v. Searcy, 418 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Ship Shape v. Taylor, 397 So.2d 1199, 1201 (Fla. 1st DC......
  • Antunez v. Whitfield, No. 4D06-4420 (Fla. App. 1/2/2008)
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 2, 2008
    ...period in which an employer must accept the claim for benefits or be liable for attorney's fees was substantive); Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge, 634 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that because attorney's fees provisions directly affect the rights of the parties, "amendments to the att......
  • Antunez v. Whitfield
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 16, 2008
    ...in which an employer must accept the claim for benefits or be liable for attorney's fees was substantive); Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge, 634 So.2d 720, 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that because attorney's fees provisions directly affect the rights of the parties, amendments to the attorne......
  • City of Crestview v. Howard, 94-3658
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 1995
    ...and amendments to the statute occurring after a claimant's injury may not be retroactively applied." Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge, 634 So.2d 720, 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). See also WFTL Broadcasting Co. v. Rowen, 480 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (amendment imposing a bad faith requirement as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT