Opinion ID: 1730892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: attorney fee on review

Text: Finally, Stacy argues that he should have been awarded an attorney fee on review, because he appealed to the review panel and obtained an increase in his award. If an employee files an application for a review before the compensation court of an award by a judge of the compensation court when the amount of compensation due is disputed, and obtains an increase in the amount of such award, the compensation court may allow the employee a reasonable attorney fee to be taxed as costs against the employer for such review. [38] The issue here arose when Bridgeport Tractor presented the single judge with a summary of the benefits it had paid Stacy. That summary reflected an overpayment of $838.07. Stacy objected to the claimed overpayment, arguing that the attached documentation had been interpreted incorrectly and that two payments had been double-counted. Bridgeport Tractor was unable to immediately resolve the matter, so the single judge said, I'll order payments if appropriate and I won't make a finding on credits. And I'll let you guys take that up with whoever. . . . Stacy's counsel indicated that the parties can figure it out. However, in the final award, the single judge mistakenly made a finding of the credit to which Bridgeport Tractor was entitled for payments already made, including the objected-to $838.07. On review, the review panel found that because the single judge had agreed with the parties not to decide the matter of Bridgeport Tractor's credit, the single judge had erred in crediting Bridgeport Tractor for the objected-to $838.07. The review panel reversed the single judge's decision to that extent. But the review panel declined to award an attorney fee, reasoning that the disallowance of a credit did not necessarily establish an increase in [Stacy's] Award, but only reserved the issue of the subject credit for future resolution. Stacy argues that the review panel should have awarded an attorney fee. For purposes of this appeal, we assume, without deciding, that a disagreement over credit for voluntary payments could be a dispute over the amount of compensation due that may result in an increase in the amount of an award. [39] But we agree with the review panel that the reversal of the credit, in this case, did not result in an increase in the award, because the issue was reserved for future determination, not decided. Where the issue of a credit against the award is not decided by the single judge of the Workers' Compensation Court, the defendant is still entitled to receive credit for payments already made. [40] And here, the parties agreed with the single judge to reserve the issue. The single judge's mistake was deciding the issue at all, and the review panel's disposition simply enforced the consensus that had been reached at trial. Given that fact, there are two problems with Stacy's argument for an attorney fee. First, because the credit issue has not been finally decided, it is impossible to tell at this point whether or not Stacy's appeal could result in an increase in the award. [41] Second, and perhaps more fundamentally, the record does not establish that in this case, the amount of Bridgeport Tractor's credit was disputed within the meaning of § 48-125(2). The issue was not submitted to the single judge, and the record does not show whether Bridgeport Tractor disputed the issue before the review panel. Absent any suggestion in the record that Bridgeport Tractor actually tried to persuade the court that it was entitled to credit for the purported $838.07 overpayment, it is difficult to conclude that Bridgeport Tractor actually disputed the amount of compensation due, as is necessary to authorize an attorney fee on review pursuant to § 48-125(2). There is no basis in § 48-125(2) to penalize Bridgeport Tractor for a mistake it neither asked the single judge to make nor asked the review panel to affirm. And the record before us contains no evidence that Bridgeport Tractor did either. In short, the record does not establish that the purported over-payment has been disputed before the Workers' Compensation Court or that Stacy has, at this point, obtained an increase in the award as a result. The review panel did not err in declining to award Stacy an attorney fee. Therefore, Stacy's final assignment of error is without merit.