MARIA NIEVES v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT and F.A. RICHARD & ASSOCIATES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MARIA NIEVES, Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D05-4422 PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT and F.A. RICHARD & ASSOCIATES, Appellees. _____________________________/ Opinion filed October 30, 2006. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Shelley M. Punancy, Judge. Jeffrey M. Friedman of Vassallo & Bilotta, Palm Springs, for Appellant. Katherine A. Mockler of Abel, Lurvey, Morrow and Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. See City of Riviera Beach v. Deliso, 713 So. 2d 426, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that the judge of compensation claims properly included permanent total disability benefits in the attorney s fee calculation because the employer/servicing agent initially controverted compensability and because the claimant s injury would not have been accepted as compensable and he would not have received any benefits without his attorney s intervention). BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR; PADOVANO, J., DISSENTS WITH OPINION. 2 PADOVANO, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The judge of compensation claims explained in detail why the Deliso case does not require an award of attorney s fees calculated on the amount of the permanent and total disability benefits. This case differs from Deliso in that the lawyer for the claimant did not show that the award of permanent total disability benefits came about as a result of his success in establishing that the claimant suffered a compensable injury. As the judge of compensation claims explained, counsel failed to show that the permanent total disability benefits were reasonably predictable as a result of his intervention. Because the record supports this controlling distinction made by the judge of compensation claims, I am unable to join in the majority s conclusion that Deliso compels a reversal in this case. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
