Opinion
No. 3D21-2403.
02-15-2023
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. M & M MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/a/o Isdel Alvarez, Appellee.
Michael J. Neimand , for appellant. Florida Advocates, and Christopher Tuccitto , James D. Underwood and Yasmin Gilinsky (Dania Beach), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
Michael J. Neimand , for appellant.
Florida Advocates, and Christopher Tuccitto , James D. Underwood and Yasmin Gilinsky (Dania Beach), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coastal Radiology, LLC, 340 So.3d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (affirming where "the trial court set forth `specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1151 (Fla. 1985).' And those findings are supported by competent substantial evidence." (quoting Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 928 So.2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))); Highlands Carpentry Service, Inc. v. Connone, 873 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (stating that a trial court "must identify the precise hourly rate as well as the amount of hours reasonably expended"); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976) ("It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before it.").