Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petition by Lavery Law seeking review of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board's affirmation of a Workers’ Compensation Judge's order concerning attorney fees and various petitions by NorGuard Insurance Company and the claimant. The claimant, who sustained a work-related injury, initially engaged Lavery Law under a 20% contingent fee agreement, later switching to Faherty Law. Subsequently, Lavery Law claimed quantum meruit for services prior to the new agreement, seeking additional fees. However, the WCJ ruled that Lavery Law had already received the maximum fees allowed under the first agreement, and their claim for quantum meruit failed as they could not show benefit to Faherty Law. The WCJ also ruled on the insurer's petitions, denying modifications and granting limited reinstatement of benefits. The WCJ ordered the transfer of fees to Faherty Law effective from the date of the new agreement and reimbursement of litigation costs. Lavery Law's appeal was unsuccessful as the court affirmed the WCAB's decision, upholding the WCJ's authority to resolve fee disputes and deeming Lavery Law's claims for additional fees unsubstantiated.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Fees Under Workers' Compensationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The WCJ determined that Lavery Law was not entitled to additional fees beyond what was already received, as the First Fee Agreement capped fees at 20% of recovered benefits.
Reasoning: The WCJ determined that Lavery Law was not entitled to additional fees, having already received over $14,000 from January 23, 2012, to March 27, 2015.
Authority of Workers' Compensation Judgesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The WCJ has the authority to resolve fee disputes and determine reasonable attorney fees, balancing former counsel's expectations with the claimant’s right to choose counsel.
Reasoning: It established that the WCJ has the authority to resolve fee disputes and determine reasonable attorney fees, balancing the former counsel's expectations with the claimant’s right to choose counsel.
Modification and Reinstatement Petitions in Workers' Compensationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The WCJ denied NorGuard’s petitions for modification and review, dismissed the physical examination petition as moot, and partially granted the Claimant’s reinstatement petition.
Reasoning: On December 10, 2015, the WCJ denied NorGuard’s petitions for modification and review, dismissed its physical examination petition as moot, and denied the Claimant's penalty petition.
Quantum Meruit Claims in Fee Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lavery Law's claim for quantum meruit was denied as they did not demonstrate that Faherty Law benefited from services rendered prior to the First Fee Agreement.
Reasoning: The court clarified that Lavery Law's quantum meruit claim, based on prior services, did not demonstrate that the Faherty Law Firm benefitted from those services.