Opinion ID: 1917420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reimbursement for Legal Fees and Costs

Text: We first address whether the board erred when it ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to additional reimbursement for the legal fees and costs he incurred to secure the third party settlement. We have recognized that an insurer's ability to take a holiday from future compensation is of economic benefit to the insurer. Knapp, 149 N.H. at 743, 829 A.2d 1052. The third-party recovery results in a contemporaneous extinguishment of a liability of the compensation insurer. That constitutes a present benefit redounding to the compensation insurer, in no way rendered less immediate or tangible because the extent of the eliminated liability was contingent in some respects. Id. (quotation and brackets omitted). The carrier in this case appears to accept its obligation to pay a share of fees and costs associated with the holiday. The carrier does not dispute this obligation, but instead contends that the federal court decision already ordered it to pay these fees and costs. We disagree with the carrier's interpretation of the federal court's order. The interpretation of a court order is a question of law, which we review de novo. In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702, 958 A.2d 948 (2008). In construing a court order, we look to the plain meaning of the words used in the document. Id. at 703, 958 A.2d 948. We construe subsidiary clauses so as not to conflict with the primary purpose of the trial court's decree. Id. As a general matter, a court decree or judgment is to be construed with reference to the issues it was meant to decide. Id. Several provisions in the federal court's order make clear that the carrier's lien offset payments the carrier had already made and did not include the carrier's holiday from future expenses. See RSA 281-A:13, I(b) (carrier entitled to a lien to the extent of the compensation, medical, hospital, or other remedial care already paid or agreed or awarded to be paid). For instance, the federal court's order explains that, among the issues the court was to decide, was whether the petitioner should be required to pay the carrier's lien at the time of settlement or when he received his final lump sum payment in twenty years. The carrier contended that the petitioner's proposal that the carrier be paid in twenty years failed to adequately provide for reimbursement of the workers' compensation benefits paid to [the petitioner]. Similarly, while the petitioner disputed the amount of the carrier's asserted lien of $367,344.00, the dispute centered upon whether certain payments the carrier had already made should be included in the lien. As the federal court explained in its order, [t]he statutory lien was created to prevent double recovery by providing reimbursement to an employer (or the employer's insurance carrier) from proceeds from third party tortfeasors. (Emphasis added.) The plain meaning of the section of the order in which the federal court calculated the amount of the carrier's pro rata share of attorney's fees and costs reveals that the court calculated the carrier's pro rata share based only upon the value of its lien. The federal court did not consider the carrier's pro rata share of fees and costs due for the holiday the carrier would be able to exercise in the future. As previously discussed, the federal court calculated the carrier's pro rata share of fees and costs based upon the percentage the lien represented of the total present value of the settlement. Because the carrier's lien of $367,344.00 represented approximately 53% of the total present value of the settlement, the court ruled that the carrier was responsible for 53% of the petitioner's fees and costs. At no time did the federal court discuss the carrier's holiday or calculate the carrier's pro rata share of the fees and costs associated with it. Accordingly, we reject the carrier's assertion that the fees and costs it has already paid pursuant to the federal court order include its share of fees and costs for its holiday. Alternatively, the carrier argues that the board lacked jurisdiction to award the petitioner additional attorney's fees and costs. The carrier asserts that because the federal court had jurisdiction to begin with, this jurisdiction cannot be superseded because the Petitioner has many years later rethought the result and would like a new one. To the contrary, the federal court's diversity jurisdiction terminated upon issuance of its final order. Nothing in the final order indicated the federal court's intent to assert continuing jurisdiction. Moreover, RSA 281-A:13, IV grants concurrent jurisdiction to the board over the division of attorney's fees and costs when the injured employee has entered into a third party settlement. RSA 281-A:13, IV provides: Whenever there is a recovery against a third person under paragraph I, II, or III, the commissioner, the arbitrator, or the superior court, as the case may be, shall order such division of expenses and costs of action, including attorneys' fees, between the employer or the employer's insurance carrier and the employee as justice may require. Because we conclude that the federal court did not order the carrier to reimburse the petitioner for the fees and costs associated with the holiday, we reverse the board's decision on this issue and remand for the board to determine the carrier's pro rata share of the fees and costs associated with its $209,330.92 holiday.