Opinion ID: 899994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶ 2] Employee was a seasonal construction worker for Employer. On or about June 18, 1991, Employee sustained a back injury while operating a bulldozer for Employer. This injury did not prevent Employee from continuing his work. Around November 25, 1991, Employee felt pain while trying to push a heavy roll of material. After both the June 18 and November 25, 1991, accidents, Employee notified his foreman as to his injury. Employee kept working until December 13, 1991. [¶ 3] Due to his back injury, Employee began treatment with several physicians, including Dr. Steven Goff (Doctor). Employee did not seek medical help until after he ended work on December 13, 1991. On July 13, 1992, Employer requested an opinion from Doctor regarding Employee's ability to return to work. Doctor's report dated August 11 stated that he did not believe Employee could return to heavy equipment work. However, Doctor opined that Employee could work at a light level of activity that did not involve jarring, pushing, pulling, heavy lifting, and overhead work. After receiving this report, Employer inquired on August 28 if Employee could do flagging work. Doctor replied on September 25, stating Employee had reached maximum medical improvement and that Employee could return to a light level of activity, [p]ossibly flagging ... trial of this would not be unreasonable. Employer did not immediately try to reemploy Employee because Employer believed that Employee wanted a determination of permanent partial impairment so that benefits would be paid allowing Employee to retire. [¶ 4] On December 29, 1992, Doctor issued a report giving Employee a six-percent whole person impairment and opining that Employee was functional at a light level of activity. Employer offered Employee a lump-sum payment for the six-percent partial permanent disability rating. Employee, who was represented by counsel, refused this offer and sought designation of odd-lot permanent total disability benefits. Employer denied odd-lot liability, asserting that Employee was capable of doing flagging work and that he had not yet attempted to perform this job. Originally, Employee refused this flagging position until August 1993, but then began employment as a flagger and continued until September 13, 1993, when he complained he was experiencing great back pain. Employee and Employer sought clarification from Doctor as to Employee's impairment designation. Doctor replied, stating Employee was not capable of handling the sustained standing activity required by [the flagging] job. Because of his incapability, Doctor questioned Employee's ability to be employable on a day-to-day basis.... [¶ 5] Due to this report, Employer agreed that Employee was entitled to odd-lot benefits. A stipulation was entered into regarding the odd-lot entitlement, which did not contain any provision for a lump-sum payment of attorney fees. This stipulation was approved by the Department of Labor (Department). Originally Employee's attorney (Attorney) approached Employer with an attorney fee demand of $41,313.92, which was twenty percent of the present value of Employee's permanent total disability benefits. Employer rejected this request, based on its belief that this was a nondisputed case. Therefore, Attorney was only entitled to an hourly rate for service rendered. Employer alleged that this raised a conflict of interest between Employee and Attorney. In addition, Employer argued that since Employee's total recovery is not certain (only expected because Employee is receiving monthly payments that cease upon his death), attorney fees cannot be calculated and distributed in a lump sum. [¶ 6] Next Employee's attorney filed with Department a request for approval of attorney fees with supporting documents including the order deeming Employee permanently and totally disabled, the present value calculation of the award, and the amount equalling twenty-five percent of attorney fees, plus six percent sales tax. Department approved payment of $51,642.40 to Attorney. Employer argues that this approval was in error, because it did not have notice or an opportunity to participate in the determination. [¶ 7] Employer requested Department to vacate its order approving attorney fees. Department denied this motion, stating that Employer did not have standing. Employer denied payment of the lump-sum attorney fees, so Employee moved for summary judgment and also requested prejudgment interest. Department granted summary judgment to Employee, but denied prejudgment interest. Employer appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed Department's decision. From these determinations, Employer appeals based on the following issues. I. Whether the circuit court applied the proper law for granting summary judgment? II. Whether the circuit court correctly awarded payment of lump-sum attorney fees? III. Whether the attorney fee award violated due process and equal protection since notice was not provided to Employer? IV. Whether Attorney and Employee have a conflict of interest? [¶ 8] Because the issue of notice is dispositive to all of Employer's issues, we will address that issue only.