Kaufman v. MacDonald

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 26, 1989

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-04-26

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1990

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Does the holding in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) preclude an attorney's fee in a medical malpractice action above the percentage amount set out in the contingency fee agreement between claimant and her counsel, where the agreement provides that the fee upon recovery shall be the higher of the percentage amount or an amount awarded by the court?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Kaufman v. MacDonald

Relies on 472 So. 2d 1145 - Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-04-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We sua sponte consolidate these two appeals, both arising out of the same medical malpractice action. We affirm on the merits of the main appeal, finding that no reversible error has been demonstrated. We do not believe the record supports, for instance, appellants’ claim that they were prejudiced by the court’s instructions to the jury or the form of the verdict.

¶2We also affirm the award of attorney’s fees to the appellee, but certify the issue raised to the supreme court as a question of great public importance.

Does the holding in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985) preclude an attorney’s fee in a medical malpractice action above the percentage amount set out in the contingency fee agreement between claimant and her counsel, where the agreement provides that the fee upon recovery shall be the higher of the percentage amount or an amount awarded by the court?

ANSTEAD, LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur.