Court Opinion

ID: 9371097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:03:59.798595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:25.862265
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed February 15, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-2403
                      Lower Tribunal No. 19-2785 SP
                          ________________

            United Automobile Insurance Company,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                     M & M Medical Center, Inc.,
                        a/a/o Isdel Alvarez,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Chiaka
Ihekwaba, Judge.

     Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

     Florida Advocates, and Christopher Tuccitto, James D. Underwood
and Yasmin Gilinsky (Dania Beach), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coastal Radiology, LLC, 340

So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (affirming where “the trial court set forth

‘specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably

expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as

required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145,

1151 (Fla. 1985).’     And those findings are supported by competent

substantial evidence.” (quoting Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners

Ass’n, Inc., 928 So. 2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))); Highlands Carpentry

Service, Inc. v. Connone, 873 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (stating

that a trial court “must identify the precise hourly rate as well as the amount

of hours reasonably expended”); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.

1976) (“It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment

for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence

from the record on appeal before it.”).

                                       2