Christian Petrucci of the Law Offices of Christian Petrucci. Revisiting 'Lorino' and Its Effect on Attorney Fees in Workers' Comp Cases
As is well known, the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act has always been interpreted to allow attorney fees charged against the employer/insurance carrier only if the employer failed to demonstrate the contest of the litigation was "unreasonable"—thus the term "unreasonable contest attorney fees."
November 21, 2022 at 10:12 AM
6 minute read
CommentaryAlmost a year ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the matter of Lorino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), 266 A.3d 487 (Pa. 2021), which directed that attorney fees "shall" be awarded when an injured worker prevails in a litigated matter. As is well known, the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act has always been interpreted to allow attorney fees charged against the employer/insurance carrier only if the employer failed to demonstrate the contest of the litigation was "unreasonable"—thus the term "unreasonable contest attorney fees." To put it mildly, the award of attorney fees assessed against the insurance company was the exception to the rule. Even in the most unreasonable of contests, attorney fees were traditionally assessed in nominal amounts and were always stayed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in the few cases where they were awarded.
This content has been archived.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 All
CFPB Advisory Opinion Targets Illegal Medical Debt Collection Tactics
8 minute read
NJDEP Proposes Changes to Hazardous Substance Discharge Reporting Rules
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Will Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
- 2Wrongful-Death Case Against Adult Day Care Sparks Call for State Regulation
- 3Attorney Claims He Was Denied Firearm Carry Permit Because of His Views on Middle East Conflict
- 4Judges’ ‘Unretirements’ After Trump's Win Spark Dubious Ethics Complaints
- 5High Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
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
