Metropolitan Dade County v. Rolle

• Decision Date: 23 August 1996
• Docket Number: Nos. 95-3918,95-3920,s. 95-3918
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1924 METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY and Metropolitan Dade County Self-Insured Fund, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Willie Belle ROLLE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 904

678 So.2d 904

21 Fla. L. Weekly D1924

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY and Metropolitan Dade County Self-Insured Fund, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Willie Belle ROLLE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 95-3918, 95-3920.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Aug. 23, 1996.

Jacqueline M. Gregory of Kelley, Kronenberg, Kelley, Gilmartin & Fichtel, P.A., Miami Lakes, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Paul Morris of the Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., Coral Gables, and Alfred Gustinger, Jr., Homestead, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellee/cross-appellant Willie Belle Rolle's motion for rehearing is granted. We withdraw our prior opinion of June 11, 1996, and substitute for it the following decision.

Appellee/cross-appellant, Willie Belle Rolle, the claimant below, was awarded 24-hour attendant care by a licensed practical nurse and $210,000 in attorney's fees. The attorney's fee award was reversed on appeal and the case remanded for recalculation of the fee under section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes (1977). Rolle v. Metropolitan Dade County, 642 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) [hereinafter Rolle I ]. Appellants/cross-appellees, Metropolitan Dade County and its carrier, Metropolitan Dade County Self-Insured Fund (the E/C), appeal the award, following remand, of $341,250 in attorney's fees, arguing that it was not based on competent, substantial evidence (CSE), that it was improperly calculated using a growth rate, and that the order granting 24-hour attendant care was procured through fraud. Claimant cross-appeals the denial of interest on the fee from the entry of the original order awarding $210,000. We affirm all issues raised in the main appeal without further comment, but reverse that asserted in the cross-appeal.

In disallowing interest, the JCC expressly relied on Stone v. Jeffres, 208 So.2d 827 (Fla.1968), and its progeny, Mander v. Concreform Co., 212 So.2d 631 (Fla.1968); Spaulding v. Albertson's, Inc., 610 So.2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); and Okaloosa County Gas District v. Mandel, 394 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The courts in those cases all cite the general rule, applicable to workers' compensation cases, that interest on an attorney's fee award runs from the date the judge of compensation claims (JCC) entered the award. The JCC below specifically emphasized in his order a statement in Mander that attorney's fees bear interest from the date of the award, "unless the award is reversed on review or appeal." Mander, 212 So.2d at 631 (emphasis added). The JCC reasoned that as the fee was reversed in Rolle I, claimant was not entitled to interest on the fee dating back to the rendition of the original order awarding $210,000. We are of the opinion that the judge misread the import of the above language in Mander.

The equities in this case permit a narrow exception to the Mander rule, never explicitly asked or addressed in any prior workers' compensation case, thereby allowing postjudgment...