From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haucke v. Oxford Development

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 19, 1987
507 So. 2d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

No. BN-374.

May 19, 1987.

Appeal from the Deputy Commissioner Patrick J. Murphy.

E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Sarasota, for appellant.

Claire L. Hamner and John J. O'Riorden of Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields Carlton, P.A., Sarasota, for appellees.


This cause is before us on appeal from a workers' compensation order in which attorney fees were awarded appellant's counsel in the amount prescribed by the sliding fee schedule contained in Section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes. Appellant challenges the order as defective, contending that proper findings of ultimate fact are not set forth. More specifically, appellant contends that the deputy commissioner's order must state that he considered all the relevant, prescribed factors in determining the appropriate fee.

The deputy awarded the amount due under the sliding fee schedule contained in Section 440.34(1), Florida Statutes, and stated in his order that he "[saw] no reason to depart from the statutory guideline." Counsel had waived expert testimony and stipulated that the hearing on attorney fees be based on affidavits. Moreover, counsel presented no facts or argument relative to the prescribed factors.

Under these circumstances, the deputy's order is not defective. Accordingly, we affirm the deputy's order.

BOOTH, C.J., and JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Haucke v. Oxford Development

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 19, 1987
507 So. 2d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Haucke v. Oxford Development

Case Details

Full title:DAVID L. HAUCKE, APPELLANT, v. OXFORD DEVELOPMENT AND HOME INSURANCE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: May 19, 1987

Citations

507 So. 2d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Tenneco, Inc. v. Giese

The deputy's order does not adequately address the other criteria described in section 440.34(1), Florida…

Fumigation Dept. v. Pearson

The deputy's order does not adequately address the other criteria described in section 440.34(1), Florida…