Allegheny Co. Can't Recoup Fees for 'Erroneous' Workers' Comp Ruling
Even though the county ultimately prevailed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said requiring disgorgement of attorney fees would have a chilling effect.
January 22, 2018 at 03:38 PM
4 minute read
Allegheny County cannot recover nearly $15,000 in attorney fees it paid in a workers' compensation case, even though the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's decision against the county was ultimately reversed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled.
In a unanimous Jan. 18 opinion, the justices acknowledged that a lawyer for the employee, Harold Parker, should not have been awarded attorney fees in the first place. But Parker's lawyer, David Landay, cannot be ordered to disgorge those fees, the ruling said.
“The General Assembly, in enacting the Workers' Compensation Act, did not provide any mechanism by which employers can recoup erroneously awarded counsel fees, once paid,” Justice Max Baer wrote for the unanimous court. “Rather, the General Assembly contemplated that when a merits appeal is undertaken, a court may grant supersedeas of an order awarding attorney's fees.”
But Allegheny County did request supersedeas in the Parker case, Baer noted, and it was denied, so the county's reimbursement petition must be denied as well.
Landay said in many instances where the amount of money in dispute is relatively low, he can only take a workers' compensation case if he has a chance at recovering unreasonable contest fees.
“If this decision had stood, I would never be able to spend that fee,” Landay said. “I'd have to hold onto it for years.”
The case dates back to a shoulder injury that Parker suffered in 1993, when he was working as chief supervisor of the Allegheny County Shuman Detention Center. It was in 2007 that Allegheny County was successful in a suspension petition that eventually led to the attorney fee award.
“The instant appeal involves a prolix factual and procedural history spanning several decades and involving numerous decisions related to the county's repeated attempts to suspend Harold Parker's workers' compensation benefits,” the opinion noted.
In 2002, the county filed a suspension petition that was denied. It filed another in 2007, arguing that Parker voluntarily removed himself from the workforce and declined a job offer within his abilities. A workers' compensation judge granted the 2007 petition.
Parker then appealed to the WCAB, saying that under collateral estoppel, Allegheny County could not pursue the 2007 petition because the 2002 petition was denied on the same basis. The WCAB agreed with Parker, reversed the 2007 petition decision and awarded attorney fees to Parker's lawyer. The board awarded $14,750 in attorney fees for unreasonable contest.
But the county filed an appeal to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the 2007 petition was based on different grounds than the 2002 petition. The Commonwealth Court agreed, and said Parker's lawyer would have to disgorge the awarded fees.
The county also filed a request for supersedeas along with its Commonwealth Court appeal on the merits of the case, but the Commonwealth Court denied it. The WCAB had done the same.
But with regard to disgorgement, the Supreme Court said the Commonwealth Court committed an error of law.
“Requiring a claimant's attorney to disgorge unreasonable contest fees previously paid in the litigation would chill claimants' attorneys from bringing such claims and would, therefore, make employers more apt to bring unreasonable challenges to their liability,” Baer wrote. The court should not add missing language to the Workers' Compensation Law, he said.
“There is no right for reimbursement for unreasonable contest attorney fees. If there was, the legislature would have made it part of the supersedeas procedures,” Landay said. “Here it was important and unusual that the court was a unanimous decision.”
Bradley Andreen of O'Brien, Rulis & Bochicchio, who represented Allegheny County, did not respond to a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250