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 filed a complaint with the Workers' Compensation Administration (WCA) after sustaining severe injuries caused by a board flipping up and striking him. The worker claimed an average wage of $11.00 per hour and a weekly compensation rate of $440.00. The employer initially accepted a mediator's Recommended Resolution, which included this compensation rate, but later sought to modify it, asserting that the rate was based on a mistake and should have been lower (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration, January 22, 2002: The WCA issued a Notice of Completion, stating that the issues had been resolved and the file was closed (para 4).
- Workers' Compensation Judge, May 8, 2002: The WCJ vacated the compensation rate in the Recommended Resolution and ordered a hearing to determine the correct rate (para 7).
- Workers' Compensation Judge, January 30, 2003: The WCJ issued a Compensation Order finding a mistake in the Recommended Resolution and setting a new compensation rate of $243.11 per week (para 8).
- Workers' Compensation Judge, February 21, 2003: The WCJ issued an order on attorney's fees, splitting the fees equally between the worker and the employer (para 9).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker: Argued that the employer's application to modify the Recommended Resolution was untimely under Section 52-5-5(C) and that the employer could not rely on Section 52-5-9(B)(2) to correct the mistake. The worker also contested the attorney's fees award and sought a recalculation based on the higher compensation rate (paras 6, 15-20).
- Employer: Claimed that the compensation rate in the Recommended Resolution was a mistake and sought relief under Section 52-5-9(B)(2). The employer also argued that the worker should bear all attorney's fees due to an offer of judgment exceeding the amount awarded in the Compensation Order (paras 5, 21).
Legal Issues
- Whether the employer could rely on Section 52-5-9(B)(2) to modify the Recommended Resolution after the time limits in Section 52-5-5(C) had expired.
- Whether the worker's attorney's fees should be recalculated based on the reinstated compensation rate.
- Whether the employer's offer of judgment precluded the worker from recovering attorney's fees.
Disposition
- The January 30, 2003, Compensation Order was vacated, and the Recommended Resolution was reinstated as conclusively binding (para 14).
- The case was remanded for reconsideration of the worker's attorney's fees based on the reinstated compensation rate (para 15).
- The employer's cross-appeal regarding fee-shifting was dismissed (para 21).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Alarid J., Bustamante CJ. concurring)
The court held that the employer's application to modify the Recommended Resolution was untimely under Section 52-5-5(C), which imposes a strict 30-day deadline for withdrawing an acceptance. Allowing the employer to rely on Section 52-5-9(B)(2) would undermine the statutory time limits and render Section 52-5-5(C) meaningless. The Recommended Resolution, therefore, became conclusively binding (paras 12-14).
Regarding attorney's fees, the court directed the WCJ to recalculate the fees based on the higher compensation rate in the reinstated Recommended Resolution. The WCJ was also instructed to consider the worker's counsel's Spanish language skills and the value of past medical benefits in determining the fees (paras 15-20).
The employer's cross-appeal was dismissed because the reinstated compensation rate exceeded the employer's offer of judgment, making the fee-shifting provision inapplicable (para 21).
Dissenting Opinion (Wechsler J.)
Wechsler J. dissented, arguing that Section 52-5-9(B)(2), which allows for a two-year period to correct mistakes in compensation orders, should apply to the withdrawal of an acceptance based on mistake. He contended that Section 52-5-5(C) only governs excusable neglect in failing to notify the WCA of acceptance or rejection and does not preclude relief under Section 52-5-9(B)(2) for mistakes (paras 24-25).