This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A worker suffered a 22% disability while employed by a self-insured ski resort. The worker's attorney sought compensation for legal fees incurred during the workers' compensation proceedings, claiming 71.58 hours of work at a rate of $150 per hour. The employer contested the reasonableness and necessity of the fees, arguing that the case was not complex and that some billed activities were unnecessary (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ): Determined the worker suffered a 22% disability and awarded attorney fees of $9,000, requiring the employer to pay 100% of the fees (paras 3, 9-10).
Parties' Submissions
- Employer: Argued that the attorney fees awarded were excessive and unreasonable, as the case was not complex or heavily litigated. The employer also contended that the WCJ erred in requiring it to pay 100% of the fees, contrary to statutory provisions (paras 2, 5, 8, 11).
- Worker: Asserted that the attorney fees were reasonable given the complexity of the case and the necessity of vigorous representation. The worker also argued that the employer's settlement letter constituted an offer of judgment, justifying the fee-shifting provision (paras 4, 6-7).
Legal Issues
- Was the amount of attorney fees awarded to the worker reasonable and within the discretion of the WCJ?
- Did the WCJ err in requiring the employer to pay 100% of the worker's attorney fees under the fee-shifting provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act?
Disposition
- The amount of attorney fees awarded was affirmed.
- The order requiring the employer to pay 100% of the attorney fees was reversed, and the matter was remanded for proceedings consistent with the decision (paras 24).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Apodaca C.J. and Black J. concurring):
Attorney Fees: The WCJ's award of $9,000 in attorney fees was within the discretionary range. The WCJ considered the statutory and Fryar factors, including the complexity of the case and the jeopardy to the worker's benefits. The employer's objections were addressed, and the reduction in the requested fees reflected the worker's partial success. The absence of a supporting affidavit was not deemed reversible error, as the petition included detailed time records, and the attorney's statements were made as an officer of the court (paras 13-19).
Fee-Shifting: The WCJ erred in applying the fee-shifting provision under Section 52-1-54(F)(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act. The employer's settlement letter did not meet the statutory requirements for an offer of judgment under Section 52-1-54(F)(4). Additionally, attorney fees awarded after a formal hearing are not considered "costs" under the Act. The WCJ should have applied Section 52-1-54(J), which requires the worker and employer to share the attorney fees equally unless specific conditions are met (paras 20-23).