Robert & Co. Associates v. Zabawczuk
| Decision Date | 28 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | 36136,Nos. 36133,s. 36133 |
| Citation | 200 So.2d 802 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROBERT & COMPANY ASSOCIATES and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Petitioners, v. John ZABAWCZUK and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. John ZABAWCZUK, Petitioner, v. ROBERT & COMPANY ASSOCIATES, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
E. O. Palmero, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, Glos & Evans, Tampa, for Robert & Company Associates and Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, petitioners, respondents.
William M. Holt, Law Offices of John A. Chilldon, Tampa, for John Zabawczuk, respondent, petitioner.
Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondent.
The principal contentions upon petitions for certiorari in this workmen's compensation proceeding concern the awarding of attorney's fees of $6500, an award of expert witness' fees for attorneys testifying for the claimant's attorney, and the question of whether nursing care should have been awarded.
While the amount of fees may be debatable, we find that the record supports the amount of the award and that the basis on which the fee was arrived at by the deputy commissioner is correct. As we read his findings, he took into consideration only the benefits received by the claimant subsequent to the time the carrier determined that the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and placed him on a 50% Permanent partial rating. The valuation evidence of the experts ranged from $2500 to $12,000. Upon consideration of the amount of the fee, the full commission approved it. We do not feel that this Court in administrative proceedings such as this should substitute its judgment relative to the amount of a fee that has been awarded by a deputy on the basis of competent evidence and approved by the full commission.
The contention of the carrier that inasmuch as the claim had not been controverted no fee was justified under any circumstance is untenable in view of the stipulation appearing in the record that the claimant's attorney was due an attorney's fee, the only question remaining being the amount.
It is our view, in accord with that of the commission, that the statutory provision, F.S.A. § 440.31, 1 for the award of expert fees authorizes only the payment of fees to experts testifying in the case with reference to direct benefits to the claimant, and that the statute was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travieso v. Travieso
...witness fees to be taxed as costs. As authority for this dicta, the Third District cited several cases including Robert & Co. Associates v. Zabawczuk, 200 So.2d 802 (Fla.1967), which involve the interpretation of a portion of the workers' compensation statute which authorizes fees to expert......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chastain
...for an expert witness who testifies as an expert relating to the value of attorney's fees in a given cause. Robert & Company Associates v. Zabawczuk, Fla.1967, 200 So.2d 802; Lee Engineering & Construction Company v. Fellows, Fla.1968, 209 So.2d 454. Although the fee appears to be minimum a......
-
B & L Motors, Inc. v. Bignotti
...So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Cf. Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So.2d 454 (Fla.1968); and Robert & Co. Associates v. Zabawczuk, 200 So.2d 802 (Fla.1967) (holding that expert witness fees for lawyers testifying on the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee cannot be colle......
-
City of Miami Beach v. Manilow
...Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 790 and Dade County v. Brigham, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 602, 18 A.L.R.2d 1221; but cf. Robert & Company Associates v. Zabawczuk, Fla.1967, 200 So.2d 802 and Allstate Insurance Company v. Chastain, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 354, Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the......