SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO . A

- 4959

- 16T2

THOMAS PALLOTTA,

Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES,

Respondent

- Respondent

.

____________________________

S ubmitted April 11, 2018

– Decided

Before Judges Currier and Geiger.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development , Division of Workers' Compensation, Claim Petition No. 2014

- 25491

.

Martin Melody, LLC, a ttorneys for appellant ( Eugene J. Melody and Nancy S. Martin, of counsel and on the briefs).

Braff Harris Sukoneck & Maloof, attorneys for respondent (Daniel A. Lynn, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this workers ' compensat ion case, petitioner Thomas

Pallo t ta appeals from the counsel fee award in the June 13, 2017

order approving settlement

. Because t he w orkers ' c ompensation NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. "

A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R. 1:36

- 3.

June 20, 20182 A

- 4959

- 16T2

judge re fused to pla c e her rea s ons on the record as required under

Rule 1:7

- 4 (a) , we vacate the orde r and remand for further

proceedings.

Petitioner sustained injur i e s while at work and filed a claim

for workers compensation benefits. After three years of

litigation , the parties reached a resolution an d appeared in court

on June 13, 2017 for judicial approval of the settlement

. At the

close of the proceeding, petitioner's counsel not ed th e counsel

fee award was 15% and not the maximum 20% fee authorized under

N.J.S.A. 34:15

- 64. T he following colloquy ensued:

COUNSEL : Your Honor, is there a reduction in counsel fee in this case?

THE JUDGE: Yes.

COUNSEL : Why?

THE JUDGE: You can appeal me.

COUNSEL : Can I be heard on that?

THE JUDGE: You can appeal me.

Thereafter , the judge left the bench.

On appeal, petitioner argues that the j udge e rred in reducing

the counsel fee award without providing any reasons, findings , or

justifications on the record or in a written opinion.

"The factual findings of the compensation court are entitled

to substantial deference." Ramos v. M & F Fashions , Inc. , 1543 A

- 4959

- 16T2

N.J. 583, 594 (1998). In reviewing the decision of a w orkers '

c o mpensation judge, t his court

must " limit[] its inquiry solely to whether the findings

. . . could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record, considering the proofs as a whole, with due regard to the opportunity of one who heard the witnesses to judge of their credibility and with due regard to his expertise."

[ Ibid. (quoting Bradley v. Henry Townsend Moving & Storage Co. , 78 N.J. 532, 534 (197 9)). ]

Rule 1:7

- 4(a) states that a trial judge "shall, by an opinion

or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and

state [his or her] conclusions of law thereon in a ll actions tried

without a jury ." "The rule requires specific fin dings of fact

and conclusions of law ." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court

Rules , cm t

. 1 on R. 1:7

- 4 (201 8 ). As noted by our Supreme Court,

[b]ecause it is fundamental to the fairness of the proceedings and serves as a necessary predicate to meaningfu l review . . . " a trial court must analyze the [relevant] factors in determining an award of reasonable counsel fees and then must state its reasons on the record for awarding a particular fee."

[ R. M . v. Supreme Court of N.J. , 190 N.J. 1, 12 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc. , 182 N.J. 1, 21 (2004)).]

Here, the c ompensation judge failed to explain her reasons

for the attorney fee award and refused to do so even after4 A

- 4959

- 16T2

requested by counsel

. Instead, she directed counsel to "appeal

[her]." We discern no basis for the court's antagonistic reaction.

All parties are entitle d to the reasons for a court's decision.

Therefore , we vacate the portion of the settlement regarding the

fee award and r emand to the compensation court to make findings

of fact and conclusions of law consistent with Rule 1:7

- 4(a). 1

Reversed , vacated , and remanded. We do not retain

jurisdiction.

1 The judge presented a letter after appeal to this court pursuant

to Rule 2:5

- 1(b) , s t at ing that the petitioner w a s awarded a 15% counsel fee, which was entirely wi thin her disc r eti o n and reasonable under the circumstances. No reasons were given for the reduction of the commonly awarded 20% fee.