From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Agrico Chemical Co. v. Tyler

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 25, 1983
439 So. 2d 970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. AQ-361.

October 25, 1983.

Charles E. Bentley and C. Kenneth Stuart, Jr., of Holland Knight, Bartow, for appellants.

George B. Cappy, Tampa, for appellee.


Appellants, employer/carrier, appeal the deputy commissioner's award of wage loss benefits to claimant Tyler. Substantial competent evidence supports the award and we affirm.

Also raised by appellants is a question concerning the deputy commissioner's preliminary disposition of entitlement to an attorney's fee. The deputy commissioner's order declares that: "Claimant's attorney is entitled to a fee which shall be determined at a later hearing." Appellants, interpreting that statement as assessing against them liability for claimant's attorney's fee to be determined later, have pointed out that claimant at no time requested an attorney's fee award and such an award is not due under the criteria enunciated in section 440.34, Florida Statutes. We do not interpret paragraph two as an assessment of attorney's fees against appellants and disregard any implication to that effect.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and BOOTH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Agrico Chemical Co. v. Tyler

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 25, 1983
439 So. 2d 970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Agrico Chemical Co. v. Tyler

Case Details

Full title:AGRICO CHEMICAL CO. AND UNDERWRITERS ADJUSTING COMPANY, APPELLANTS, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Oct 25, 1983

Citations

439 So. 2d 970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)