State v. Caldwell
| Decision Date | 30 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. RR-12,RR-12 |
| Citation | 388 So.2d 640 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Sunland Training Center At Miami and National Loss Control Service Corp., Appellants, v. Mary CALDWELL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Summers Warden, Miami, for appellants.
Law Offices of Sam Bloom, P. A., Miami, and Sugarman & Arnold, Coral Gables, for appellee.
The Employer-Carrier challenges the attorney's fee awarded by the Judge of Industrial Claims. We reverse.
The sum and substance of the provisions in the order concerning attorney's fees is as follows:
The Affidavit As To Reasonable Attorneys Fees executed on July 30, 1979 alleges present worth value of benefits of $320,029.00. The affidavit indicates 142.45 hours. Mr. Bloom was of the opinion that $48,754.00 would be a reasonable fee. Isreal Abrams, attorney, testified on behalf of the claimant to the effect that a reasonable fee for the services rendered by Mr. Bloom would be between $47,500.00 and $50,000.00.
Errol Cornell testified on behalf of the employer and carrier that the range should be between $20,000.00 and $25,000.00 for services rendered.
After considering the evidence and taking into consideration all of the variables, the attorneys fee schedule under F.S. 440.34, and the Lee Engineering Case it is found that a reasonable fee to be paid Sam Bloom for services rendered claimant is $40,000.00.
Appellants urge first of all that it was error for the Judge to consider the affidavit because it was never formally introduced into evidence. The record reveals that, although it is true that the affidavit was not formally introduced, the testimony of all the witnesses on the issue of attorney's fees, including appellants' witness, was based on the affidavit and counsel for both parties referred to the affidavit as having been "submitted" to the Judge. Under these circumstances we see no error.
The cases cited by appellants which resulted in a reversal where the affidavits were not in evidence involved situations where the affidavits were submitted to the Judge after the hearing was held and the opposing party was not given an opportunity to challenge them. In Grubbs v. Sunland Training Center of Miami, IRC Order 2-3476 (July 12, 1978), one affidavit was submitted after the hearing and the claimant was denied an opportunity to challenge it. There, although the IRC found that this was error, it held that it was harmless error since the claimant had sufficient opportunity to cross examine the other of the opposing party's expert witnesses. Furthermore in R & R Construction Co. v. Golden, IRC Order 2-2931 (March 5, 1976), the Commission held that the failure to formally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lanier v. State
- Lanier v. State, Case No. 2D04-1786 (FL 10/7/2005)
-
Pantry Pride v. Hayes
...Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Jacobs, 402 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 471 (Fla.1982); State v. Caldwell, 388 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Fireman's Insurance Co. v. Phillips, 368 So.2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); §§ 90.703, 90.704, Fla.Stat. (1983); § 440.39(3)(a), Fla......
-
Diwakar v. Montecito Palm Beach Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...filed in the case during the course of litigation, there was no mention of these affidavits by Schultz. See State v. Caldwell, 388 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (finding court did not err in considering affidavit not in evidence where the parties treated it as though it was entered int......