Byrd v. Moltech Power Systems
31 FLW D1031
In determining claimant’s attorney’s fees utilizing hours expended in the prosecution of a successful claim, the amount of time expended by defense attorneys should not influence or control the fee payable to the claimant’s attorney. Such evidence is marginally relevant. Admission into evidence in this case of the defense attorney’s time records deemed not reversible and did not constitute an abuse of discretion by the JCC. Moreover, the court determined that it was disingenuous on the part of the claimant’s attorney to take the position in this appeal that the billing records of defense counsel were irrelevant to the determination of a reasonable fee where the claimant’s attorney initially sought discovery of the defense attorney’s records arguing in her motion to compel discovery that these records were relevant and material to the determination of whether the hours she spent were reasonable.
Competent and substantial evidence supported JCC’s acceptance of employer/carrier’s expert testimony as to the reasonableness of hours that should have been expended in the prosecution of the claim.
Judge’s order allowed the employer/carrier thirty days to pay the attorney’s fees awarded before the claimant would be entitled to interest and penalties. Claimant’s objection to this provision of the order on appeal deemed waived by the court. Initially, the JCC had made this ruling in an abbreviated order. The claimant challenged the abbreviated order and requested a more specific final order but did not challenge the ruling on the time allowed the employer/carrier to pay the awarded attorney’s fees. Since the claimant’s attorney did not object to this provision of the award by way of a motion for rehearing either after the abbreviated order or following the more specific final order, court deemed claimant’s objection to this provision on appeal waived.
In abbreviated order, JCC found that 160 hours to prosecute the claim was reasonable. In the more specific final order, the JCC determined 155 hours was reasonable. The JCC explained in the final order that his calculations in the abbreviated order were mistakenly made. On appeal, court found no error in reducing the number of hours found reasonable.