Case ID: so2d_626/html/0335-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LAWRENCE, Judge. SMITH, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jairo CARDONA, Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. and Ohio Casualty Company, Appellees.
    No. 92-2503.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Nov. 17, 1993.
    
      William L. Welker of Goldberg, Goldstein & Buckley, P.A., Ft. Myers and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellant.
    Hermes Eraclides of O’Riorden, Mann, Hootman, Ingram & Dunkle, P.A., Sarasota, for appellees.
   LAWRENCE, Judge.

Jairo Cardona appeals the decision of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denying him attorney’s fees and costs. Cardona asserted entitlement to attorney’s fees based on sections 440.34(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1989). The standard of review of a JCC’s award or denial of attorney’s fees under section 440.34(3), is whether the findings on which the award or denial is based, are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Palumbo v. Metropolitan Dade County, 465 So.2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). After careful review of the record, we find there is competent, substantial evidence to support the JCC’s finding and hereby affirm.

KAHN, J., concurs.

SMITH, J., dissents, with opinion.

SMITH, Judge,

dissenting.

In my view, the record permits of no reasonable conclusion other than the one urged by the appellant, namely, that the efforts of ids counsel resulted in his obtaining an alternative orthopedic opinion, physical therapy and renewed orthopedic treatment, all of which occurred after the E/C improperly refused to accept the claimant’s demand for a different orthopedist. As the record clearly shows, the E/C defended on the grounds that an alternative opinion was not reasonably medically necessary, but ultimately, more than 21 days after notice of claimant’s request, did proceed to provide the medical attention needed by the claimant. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the actions of his counsel were necessary, and did in fact result in benefits to the claimant. The JCC’s denial of attorney’s fees under section 440.-34(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), in my opinion, was error. See, Nieves v. Dade County School Board, 583 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Alcoma Packing Co. v. Jones, 571 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Wiseman v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 569 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Jackson v. Dade County School Board, 484 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). I would therefore reverse the denial of attorney’s fees.