M. Serra Corp. v. Garcia

Decision Date03 February 1983
Docket NumberNo. AD-481,AD-481
Citation426 So.2d 1118
PartiesM. SERRA CORPORATION and The Travelers Insurance Co., Appellants, v. Juan GARCIA, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Jerry V. Wilkey, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Arnold R. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Ratiner & Glinn, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the deputy commissioner's otherwise well-written order awarding attorney's fees because, contrary to the written finding that the time and labor expended by claimant's counsel was considered in awarding the fees, the record discloses that no evidence of the time and labor expended by counsel was ever produced at the attorney's fee hearing. 1 Although we are cognizant of the fact that the deputy commissioner was thoroughly familiar with the time, effort and skill exhibited by claimant's attorney in the actual presentation of the case, the order contains no specific findings on the time expended, and the deputy commissioner's own conclusions on this factor are not a substitute for actual testimony by the claimant's attorney.

This court has often alluded to the necessity for the keeping of adequate time records by counsel, and the need for evidence on this factor, in keeping with the legislative mandate requiring consideration, among other factors, of the "time and labor required," in performing the legal service for the claimant. Section 440.34(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981); Brevard County School Board v. Walters, 396 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Orange County School Board v. Van Zant, 400 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State, Department of Agriculture v. Handy, 413 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

While we cannot say that the fee of $75,000.00 awarded here is "patently excessive" (Handy, 413 So.2d at 810), based on the obtaining of attendant care services for this permanently and totally disabled claimant 2 calculated as having a present day value in the half-million dollar range, 3 we cannot approve an award of fees--particularly an award of this magnitude--where it does not appear that full consideration was given to all of the factors called for by the statute. See, also, City of Leesburg v. Padgett, 397 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), in which the court reviewed an attorney's fees award for obtaining attendant care benefits, 4 stating (Id. at 733):

Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney's fees and remand the cause for reconsideration and for the determination of an appropriate lump sum fee. We caution, however, that an attorney's fee based upon the statutory sliding scale guidelines without a substantial reduction based upon the circumstances of this case, particularly the time expended in the case and the issue involved, would be considered excessive as an abuse of discretion.

We agree, however, with the award of a lump sum, rather than determination of attorney's fees on a periodic basis, in accord with City of Leesburg v. Padgett, supra.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings, including the presentation of evidence on the time and labor expended by claimant's attorney.

MILLS and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

SHAW, LEANDER, J., Jr., Associate Judge, dissents.

1 Near the end of the attorney's fee hearing the deputy commissioner expressed his own uncertainty concerning the adequacy of the information presented in support of attorney's fees, as follows: "I have no evidence and the Claimant has rested his case. I have no evidence before me other than that which has been voluntarily given such as now, on any of the factors or the criteria to be used in setting a fee other than the benefits obtained. And what have you. And I have some serious problems with whether or not--I don't know how many hours are involved, I don't know whether there were any novel questions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1985
    ...records of work done and time spent on a case, particularly when someone other than the client may pay the fee. See M. Serra Corp. v. Garcia, 426 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983); Brevard County School Board v. Walters, 396 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). T......
  • What An Idea, Inc. v. Sitko
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1987
    ...v. Gautier, 133 So.2d 732 (Fla.1961), City of Leesburg v. Padgett, 397 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and M. Serra Corporation v. Garcia, 426 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). While we agree with cross-appellees that these cases are distinguishable in that in none of them did the deputy commi......
  • Barr v. Pantry Pride
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 1987
    ...and labor required" in performing the legal services for the claimant was strongly recommended by this Court in M. Serra Corporation v. Garcia, 426 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. rev. den., 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983). Counsel should be diligent in keeping records of services rendered and tim......
  • Prestressed Decking Corp. v. Medrano
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1989
    ...counsel to keep accurate and complete time records. See Barr v. Pantry Pride, 518 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); M. Serra Corp. v. Garcia, 426 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), pet. for review denied 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983). But sufficient evidence was presented as to all of the hours which......
  • 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