Title: Perez v. Travelers Insurance

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Perez v. Travelers Insurance (2005-104)

2006 VT 123

[Filed 17-Nov-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinio-n is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 123

                                No. 2005-104


  Georgina Perez                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Addison Superior Court


  Travelers Insurance as Insurer for             February Term, 2006
  Ames Department Stores, Inc.


  Helen M. Toor, J.

  Ronald A. Fox of Biggam Fox & Skinner, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  William C. Dagger of Dagger Law Offices, Woodstock, for Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   Claimant in this workers' compensation case
  appeals the superior court's decision denying her request for attorney's
  fees and awarding only a portion of her costs.  We affirm in part, reverse
  in part, and remand for further proceedings.  
   
       ¶  2.  Claimant prevailed on her workers' compensation claim before
  the Commissioner of the Department of Labor & Industry, and prevailed again
  when defendant appealed the Commissioner's decision to the superior court. 
  See 21 V.S.A § 670 (permitting appeal to superior court in workers'
  compensation cases).  The workers' compensation statute provides that a
  claimant who prevails in an appeal to superior court "shall be entitled to
  reasonable attorney's fees as approved by the court."  21 V.S.A. § 678(b). 
  Accordingly, claimant submitted a motion for fees and costs. 


       ¶  3.  In her motion, claimant set forth the statutory basis for the
  award and argued that the award should be calculated using the "lodestar"
  approach-multiplying the number of hours her attorney expended on the case
  by a reasonable hourly rate, and then adjusting that figure based on
  consideration of factors such as the difficulty of the legal issues in the
  case and the result obtained.  See L'Esperance v. Benware, 2003 VT 43, ¶
  22, 175 Vt. 292,