From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pinch-A-Penny v. Russell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 11, 1987
516 So. 2d 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

No. BR-354.

November 17, 1987. Rehearing Denied December 11, 1987.

Appeal from an order of Deputy Commissioner Joe E. Willis, St. Petersburg.

Randall O. Reder and Jonathan L. Alpert, of Alpert, Josey and Grilli, Tampa, for appellants.

Ivan Matusek and Anthony V. Cortese, of Matusek, Ogden, McKnight, and Hudson, St. Petersburg, for appellee.


The employer and carrier appeal a workers' compensation order awarding temporary disability benefits, medical and psychiatric treatment, and rehabilitation services, asserting that their constitutional due process rights have been violated. They have raised nine separate issues asserting error in the deputy commissioner's factual and procedural rulings, none of which have any merit. We find this appeal to be frivolous.

The claimant's motion for appellate attorney fees is granted and the case is remanded to the deputy commissioner for determination of a reasonable appellate attorney fee. We note the enormous expenditure of time and labor which the claimant's answer brief represents, the cogent arguments contained therein, and the experience, reputation and ability of the claimant's counsel, all of which should be considered by the deputy commissioner.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED for determination of the amount of a reasonable appellate attorney fee.

BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pinch-A-Penny v. Russell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 11, 1987
516 So. 2d 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Pinch-A-Penny v. Russell

Case Details

Full title:PINCH-A-PENNY AND NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS, v. THERESA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Dec 11, 1987

Citations

516 So. 2d 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Pasco Cty Bd. of Cty. Commr. v. Bauer

Affirmed. This appeal is patently frivolous and abusive of the appellate process. See Pinch-a-Penny v.…