fbpx

Volume 11

Case Search

APOPKA WELLNESS CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 937a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Discovery — Depositions — Expert witness fee — Treating physician questioned about his ability to obtain counsel and other matters relating to application of fee multiplier is fact witness not entitled to expert witness fee — Attorney’s claim for expert witness fee for deposition testimony is moot where issues of attorney’s fees and costs were previously settled by parties

Read More »

PHYSICIANS HEALTH CENTER (Dr. Carol Bartholomew, D.C.) As Assignee of JOSEPH SUTERA, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 567a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Insurer is ordered to produce documentation of time expended by its counsel — Depositions — Provider/assignee may depose insurer’s claims adjuster regarding matters pertaining to issue of contingency risk multiplier — Deposition of provider’s counsel is to be taken at attorney’s office, not at court reporter’s office as noticed

Read More »

ROBERT MARTINEZ, M.D., P.A. (As assignee of GERARDO PIMIENTA), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, An insurance company authorized to do business in Florida, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 455b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Where insurer has not honored order preliminary to fees hearing that directed it to respond to disputed items of fees and costs within ten days of receipt of provider/assignee’s affidavit of time and costs, requested deposition of provider’s counsel may be had only by paying counsel his hourly rate

Read More »

CICERO ORTHO-MED CENTER, INC., assignee of Felicita Martinez, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1081a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Amount — Contingency risk multiplier — Multiplier is not applicable where relevant market did not require multiplier to obtain competent counsel even though counsel was employed on pure contingency basis and was unable to mitigate risk of nonpayment — Expert witness fees and costs awarded

Read More »

ASCLEPIUS MEDICAL CENTER and FINLAY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER (as assignees of RAMON MENDOZA), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1076b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Amount — Contingency risk multiplier — Multiplier is not applicable where relevant market did not require multiplier to obtain competent counsel even though counsel was employed on pure contingency basis and was unable to mitigate risk of nonpayment — Expert witness fees and costs awarded

Read More »

CICERO ORTHO-MED CENTER, INC., assignee of Jorge Fermin, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1076a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Amount — Contingency risk multiplier — Multiplier is not applicable where relevant market did not require multiplier to obtain competent counsel even though counsel was employed on pure contingency basis and was unable to mitigate risk of nonpayment — Expert witness fees and costs awarded

Read More »

COUNTY LINE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., assignee of Ian Foster, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1074a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Amount — Contingency risk multiplier — Multiplier is not applicable where relevant market did not require multiplier to obtain competent counsel even though counsel was employed on pure contingency basis and was unable to mitigate risk of nonpayment — Expert witness fees and costs awarded

Read More »

JOSE M. NAVARRO, CICERO ORTHO-MED CENTER, and OMI of CORAL GABLES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 239e

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Contingency risk multiplier of 2.0 is applicable where plaintiff’s attorney was employed on pure contingency basis, relevant market required potential of multiplier to obtain competent counsel, attorney was not able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment, at outset of case the law regarding insurer’s defense of lack of countersignature on HCFA claim forms was unsettled and plaintiff’s chance of success was 50% at best, and plaintiff substantially prevailed on all claims and issues — Expert witness fee, costs, and prejudgment interest awarded

Read More »

DYNAMIC CARE, INC. as assignee of KASHIN HASHIM, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1071c

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Amount — Contingency risk multiplier — Where counsel undertook representation of medical provider pursuant to pure contingency fee agreement, market in jurisdiction requires contingency risk multiplier to obtain competent counsel in such cases, and provider’s chances of success at outset of case were more likely than not, multiplier of 1.25 is applicable — Costs, expert witness fee, and prejudgment interest awarded

Read More »
Skip to content