Want to advertise your business to THOUSANDS OF ATTORNEYS in the Tampa Bay area ?
percentAgefeeSinworkerS ’ coMpenSAtion
Workers ’ Compensation Section
continuedfrompage56
and costs , the amount which was to be paid to Attorney Rudolph was $ 805,000 . This was only 5.8 % of the total settlement in a claim , whereas the sliding scale for contingent attorney ’ s fees was 25 / 20 / 15 . All of the attorneys together were taking less than 10 % of the total settlement , when the minimum sliding scale rate was 15 %.
The Judge of Compensation Claims rejected the petition for attorney ’ s fees and decided instead to award a fee of $ 123,000 to Attorney Rudolph . The Judge found that the hours in the case by Attorney Rudolph were 205 hours , and that $ 600 per hour was a reasonable rate for the attorney in that jurisdiction . Therefore , he multiplied 205 hours by $ 600 to award $ 123,000 , primarily because the proposed guideline would result in an hourly rate of approximately $ 4,000 per hour .
The decision denying the petition was reversed and remanded with directions to award Attorney Rudolph $ 805,000 . The First District held that workers ’ compensation claimant fee determinations should start with an analysis of the statutory guidelines , which in section 440.34 include eight factors , and the Judge could also consider whether there were exceptional circumstances to warrant an upward or downward departure from the guideline . The First District held that the Judge was not permitted under the law to ignore the statutory fee factors and possible exceptional circumstances and simply multiply hours by an hourly rate . Therefore , the First District held that because the petition met the eight factors required under the statute , it should have been granted .
This decision was not without precedent . In Trans World Tire v . Hagness , 651 So . 2d 124 ( Fla . DCA 1995 ), the attorney for the claimant filed an uncontested petition for attorney ’ s fees and cited the statutory factors in asking for a proper guideline statutory fee . The Judge found that none of the factors in the statute warranted the departure from the statutory guidelines that the Employer / Carrier proposed and
������
��������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������
awarded $ 35,000 , which the Employer / Carrier appealed as excessive . The First District affirmed , citing multiple similar precedents over the years , while the dissent argued that the award would result in an excessive hourly rate of approximately $ 1,700 per hour . ( Note , inflation between 1995 and 2024 would make that 1995 award approximately $ 3,400.00 today ). n
Author : Anthony V . Cortese – Anthony V . Cortese , Attorney at Law
������
��������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������
Want to advertise your business to THOUSANDS OF ATTORNEYS in the Tampa Bay area ?
CONTACT STACY @ HILLSBAR . COM FOR MORE INFORMATION .
M A y - J u N 2 0 2 4 | H C B A L A W y E R
5 7