In Martin Garcia’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, Garcia was represented first by Russell Keener and then by Jorge Flores. After Garcia and his employer reached a settlement, Flores filed a motion seeking the entire amount allotted in the settlement for attorney fees. After a hearing, an administrative law judge largely rejected Flores’ motion and ruled that Flores should receive only 1.2 percent of the attorney fee allotment while Keener should receive the remaining 98.8 percent. On appeal to the Board’s Appellate Division, the Appellate Division vacated the ALJ’s decision and ruled that Flores was entitled to 30 percent of the total attorney fees while Keener was entitled to 70 percent. On appeal to the Superior Court of Bartow County, the superior court vacated the Appellate Division’s ruling, based on its conclusion that the Appellate Division failed to apply the correct legal standard, and remanded. We granted Flores’ application for a discretionary appeal. Flores contends, inter alia, that the legal standard which the superior court instructed the Appellate Division to apply is incorrect. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the superior court’s ruling and reinstate the Appellate Division’s award. In an appeal from an order of a superior court reviewing an award of the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation, this Court examines the record to see if there is competent evidence to support the award and construes the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. . . . Further, it is axiomatic that the findings of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation, when supported by any evidence, are conclusive and binding, and that neither the superior court nor this Court has any authority to substitute itself as a fact finding body in lieu of the Board. Citations and punctuation omitted. Keystone Automotive v. Hall , 292 Ga. App. 645, 647-648 1 665 SE2d 392 2008.1 “The question of whether the superior court applied the correct legal standard in evaluating the evidence, however, is one of law, which we review de novo.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Id. at 647 1.
The record shows the following undisputed facts. Garcia was catastrophically injured on January 22, 2005, and hired Keener on October 14, 2005 to represent him in his workers’ compensation claim. In the contingent fee contract, Garcia agreed to pay Keener 25 percent “of any recovery” or, in the event Garcia dismissed Keener, a fee “based upon time devoted to Garcia’s case at a reasonable hourly rate” or 25 percent “of any offers which have been made by any adversary or collateral party, whichever is greater.” After 20 months of litigation that included two mediations, a rehabilitation conference, and creation of a life care plan, Garcia’s employer offered to settle his claim for a lump sum payment of $650,000 plus the amount required to be set aside for Medicare2. Garcia rejected the offer and, on June 14, 2007, dismissed Keener. Keener filed a lien for his legal fee in the amount of $162,500 25 percent of the settlement offer of $650,000, plus accrued expenses.
