Mitchell v. Sunshine Companies
| Decision Date | 24 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D02-2767.,1D02-2767. |
| Citation | 850 So.2d 632 |
| Parties | Gregory MITCHELL, Appellant, v. SUNSHINE COMPANIES, Employer/Unisource Administrators, Carrier/Servicing Agent, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William H. McKnight of William H. McKnight, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Joey D. Oquist of Joey D. Oquist & Associates, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellees.
The claimant appeals a workers' compensation order denying his request for an attorney's fee award under section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes. As the claimant asserts, he established the necessary predicate for a fee award under the statute and thus should have been found entitled to payment of his attorney's fee. Section 440.34(3)(b), as effective when the claimant was injured in 1996, provided for the recovery of an attorney's fee when the employer or carrier files a notice of denial and the claimant has employed an attorney in the successful prosecution of a claim for benefits. The claimant here petitioned for permanent total disability benefits, and the carrier filed a notice of denial as to that petition. Several months later the claimant submitted an amended petition again claiming permanent total disability, and the employer/carrier did not file a notice of denial as to the amended petition. The employer/carrier did not then accept the claim, and the failure to timely respond is treated as the procedural equivalent of a notice of denial. Russell Corp. v. Brooks, 698 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Alachua County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Starling, 699 So.2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
. As indicated in McDonald's Restaurant # 7160 v. Montes, 736 So.2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), the claimant was therefore entitled to a fee award if his attorney then successfully prosecuted the permanent total disability claim.
Rather than proceeding to an evidentiary hearing, the parties participated in mediation and the carrier thereafter agreed to accept the claim. And while this acceptance avoided the necessity of a merits hearing, the attorney's efforts in obtaining the benefits constitutes a successful prosecution of the claim for purposes of an attorney's fee award. Soriano v. Gold Coast Aerial Lift, 705 So.2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also, e.g., City of Miami Beach v. Schiffman, 144 So.2d 799 (Fla. 1962)
; Smith v. General Parcel Service, 699 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The claimant thus met both of the necessary criteria under section 440.34(3)(b), so as to establish entitlement to an attorney's fee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v. Habana Health Care Ctr.
...to a petition for benefits may indeed be relevant to a claimant's right to recover attorney's fees. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Sunshine Cos., 850 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (finding carrier's failure to respond timely to the petition for benefits was equivalent to a notice of denial, en......
-
Williams v. State Dep't of Corrections/Division of Risk Mgmt.
...the claim.’ ” Franco v. SCI at the Palmer Club at Prestancia, 989 So.2d 709, 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting Mitchell v. Sunshine Cos., 850 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). A successful claimant is not entitledto attorney's fees, however, “until 30 days after the date the carrier or em......
-
Aguilar v. Kohl's Dep't Stores Inc.
...in Claimant's favor pretrial—because such a resolution constitutes a “successful prosecution” of the claims. See Mitchell v. Sunshine Cos., 850 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding E/C's pretrial concession of benefits requested in PFB justifies fee award). Without this evidence, a JCC's ......
-
Bussey v. Wal-Mart Store# 725
...(Fla. 1st DCA 1997). From that point forward, we have consistently adhered to this interpretation. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Sunshine Cos., 850 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (noting that a failure to timely respond is the procedural equivalent of a notice of denial); Denestan v. Miami-Dad......