Case Law Update January 2024
Updated 1-24-24
| Rudolph v. Darien Smith / Liberty Mutual/ Home Depot , ___ So.3d ___ (Fla. 1st DCA 1/24/24) Attorney Fees/Reasonableness/JCC Discretion The DCA reversed the JCC’s award of attorney fees based on a customary hourly rate instead of the contingency fee amount agreed to by the claimant and his attorneys. The DCA found no exceptional circumstances existed which would have allowed the JCC to justify a reduction in the statute’s presumptively reasonable fee. The claimant had been rendered a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic in 1993. He settled his indemnity in 1995 but his case continued on with six different attorneys representing him over the years, until Mr. Rudolph obtained a $13.5 million dollar settlement of the medical benefits. Rudolph sought a fee of $1,330,000.00, which was less than the stat fee ($2,025,750) and which would include resolution of all prior fee liens. The claimant waived a hearing on the matter. After payment to the prior attorneys Rudolph would receive $805,000.00. Following the filing of a Verified Petition, the JCC awarded the fees to the prior attorneys per their agreement, but in a second Order, reduced Rudolph’s fee under the applicable law to $123,000.00 and awarded the balance to the claimant. The JCC found that his time spent was low with minimal litigation comparatively and his hours (205) resulted in “about a $4,000.00 an hour fee” which shocked the conscience. His reduced award was based on the hours times $600.00 per hour (as testified to by a predecessor attorney). The DCA reversed, agreeing with Rudolph’s arguments that the JCC relied too heavily on a customary hourly rate, and failed to consider that such a customary fee is in fact a percentage of the settlement and not based on an hourly rate. They agreed there was a lack of record evidence as to other statutory factors, and no exceptional circumstances to warrant a downward departure. The DCA compared the facts with its prior Alderman decision and noted the JCC’s “hyperfocus” on a reasonable hourly rate reduced the fee analysis to nothing more than a simple mathematical formula, and that the agreed to fee was substantially less than what the statute said was presumptively fair. Click here to view Opinion |