AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 claim for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining injuries. The worker's attorney communicated with the treating physician to clarify inaccuracies in medical records and ensure they reflected the worker's condition. The employer's insurer alleged that these communications were improper and led to increased contention in the case. The claim was settled before trial, and a separate hearing was held to determine attorney fees (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarded the worker's attorney $3,250 in fees, significantly less than the requested amount, citing the attorney's ex parte communications with the treating physician as a factor (paras 6-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Worker's Attorney): Argued that the ex parte communications with the treating physician were permissible and necessary to clarify medical records and assess the worker's claim. Contended that the reduction in attorney fees was inconsistent with the WCJ's finding that the hours expended were reasonable and necessary (paras 8-9).
• Respondents (Employer and Insurer): Claimed that the attorney's communications with the treating physician were improper and contributed to increased contention in the case. Supported the reduction in attorney fees (paras 4-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers' Compensation Judge erred in reducing the attorney fees based on permissible ex parte communications with the treating physician.
• Whether the reduction in attorney fees was inconsistent with the finding that the hours expended were reasonable and necessary (paras 7-9).

Disposition

• The case was remanded to the Workers' Compensation Judge for reconsideration of the attorney fees award (para 13).

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Alarid and Bustamante JJ. concurring):

• The WCJ abused discretion by giving controlling consideration to an improper factor—permissible ex parte communications with the treating physician—when reducing attorney fees. Such communications are a common and acceptable practice in litigation to clarify facts and prepare witnesses (paras 9-10).
• The WCJ's findings were inconsistent. While the hours expended by the attorney were deemed reasonable and necessary, the reduction in fees was based on increased contentiousness allegedly caused by the attorney's conduct. This inconsistency warranted remand (paras 11-13).
• The WCJ may consider other factors, such as the worker's partial success and the range of fees typically awarded in similar cases, when reassessing the fee award (paras 14-15).
• The Court declined to award attorney fees for the appeal but left it to the WCJ's discretion to address this issue on remand (para 16).