Johnson v. Boise Cascade Corp.

Citations: 134 Idaho 350; 2 P.3d 735; 2000 Ida. LEXIS 20Docket: No. 25040

Court: Idaho Supreme Court; March 16, 2000; Idaho; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was made regarding the Industrial Commission’s decision to deny Raymundo G. Pena’s request for attorney fees from a permanent partial impairment (PPI) award linked to Larry Dean Johnson’s workers’ compensation case. Johnson, employed by Boise Cascade Corporation, suffered a significant injury in a 1995 industrial accident that led to multiple surgeries, including the amputation of his left leg. Pena began representing Johnson shortly after the injury, with a fee agreement entitling him to 25% of any recovered amounts, acknowledged by both parties.

Initially, Boise Cascade accepted liability for the first surgery but denied responsibility for subsequent surgeries due to complications and alleged medical improprieties. After a series of surgeries and medical evaluations, Johnson received a 28% whole man PPI rating, resulting in a total PPI award of $30,877. Johnson entered into a Settlement Agreement with Boise Cascade in November 1996, which included a payment of $75,000, comprising the PPI award.

While the Commission approved the 25% attorney fee for the lump sum portion of the settlement, it withheld jurisdiction over attorney fees from the PPI funds, questioning Pena's entitlement to claim fees from that portion. The Commission ordered Boise Cascade’s surety to pay Johnson $55,967.76 and Pena $11,336.76 in attorney fees and costs, while retaining $7,695.48 of the settlement pending further proceedings regarding Pena’s claim to the PPI award for attorney fees.

A hearing on April 1, 1997, determined Pena's entitlement to attorney fees from PPI funds. On October 2, 1998, the Commission ruled that Pena did not sufficiently demonstrate that his efforts were primarily responsible for Johnson's PPI award, thus denying his request for a charging lien against the $7,695.48 balance in PPI funds. The court's review of the Commission's decisions is limited to assessing whether its findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence, which is defined as relevant proof that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. The Commission has the authority to approve attorney fee claims under Idaho Code § 72-803, and 'reasonable' attorney fees must align with the fee agreement and be satisfied from available funds. Available funds exclude any compensation paid prior to the attorney's retention agreement. An attorney can assert a charging lien only if they demonstrate that their services primarily secured the fund for payment. The Commission's denial of attorney fees was recently upheld in Mancilla v. Greg, where it was determined that Pena did not substantially contribute to securing Mancilla’s PPI award, as the doctor initiated the PPI determination and Pena merely agreed it was fair. The Commission's findings in both cases were supported by substantial and competent evidence.

The case parallels Mancilla in that the PPI determination began with Johnson's physician, which was undisputed. Pena contends that Boise Cascade initially rejected full responsibility for the PPI award and asserts that only through his efforts did Boise Cascade ultimately pay it. He cites a meeting on November 21, 1995, where he demanded payment of medical bills, which continued into December 1995 and January 1996. However, at the Commission hearing, Pena acknowledged that Boise Cascade paid for medical bills related to the first two surgeries shortly after his retention and claims no credit for those payments. His efforts were primarily aimed at securing payment for the third and fourth surgeries, which Boise Cascade had questioned. Pena also conceded that there was no record of an outright denial of liability for all surgeries by Boise Cascade, as they merely contested the medical bills. His testimony indicated that the involvement of outside counsel prompted Boise Cascade to begin paying Johnson’s medical bills promptly.

The Commission determined Johnson's PPI award under I.C. § 72-428(2), concluding that the award would remain at 28% post-second surgery, consistent with the post-fourth surgery award. Thus, the Commission reasonably concluded that Johnson's PPI award would not have changed due to Pena's involvement after the second surgery. While Pena may have played a role in Boise Cascade acknowledging responsibility for the subsequent surgeries, the impairment rating did not increase as a result. The Commission found substantial evidence supporting that Pena was not significantly responsible for securing Johnson’s PPI award.

Pena's request for attorney fees on appeal was denied since he was not the prevailing party. The Industrial Commission's order to deny Pena's fee request from Johnson’s PPI award was affirmed. The $55,967.76 figure was calculated by subtracting total attorney fees and costs from the settlement, while $11,054.52 was determined by taking 25% of a lump sum figure, minus previously paid fees. Justices SILAK, SCHROEDER, WALTERS, and KIDWELL concurred with the decision.