Court Opinion

ID: 9693417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:40:56.184184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:46.188160
License: Public Domain

TODD, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part.)
I concur in the result reached by the majority providing for a remand in the Mack case. I would note that in the opinion of this writer the present award of attorney fees is grossly inadequate.
I dissent in the Young matter. The injured employee has on two occasions signed a stipulation approving a lump sum fee of $10,000 for his attorney. The referee allowed only $2,511.09 attorney fees. The Court of Appeals raised this amount to $7,511.09 but limited its payment to supplementary benefits occurring after July, 1981, relying on Minn.Stat. § 176.133 (1982). There is nothing in this section or any other section of the Workers’ Compensation Act which requires this result. Here, the employee was awarded accrued supplemental benefits in a lump sum payment of $11,-555.45 for temporary total disability plus a lump sum payment of $34,651.45 for continuing supplementary benefits through February 26, 1982 and continuing benefits thereafter. The Court of Appeals, by refusing to pay the attorney in full, have reduced their value, since the fee has been earned but the attorney does not have the use of the funds. Based on the record in this case, an allowance of $10,000 attorney fees is very reasonable and should be paid to the attorney out of the lump sum payment to the employee amounting to $46,-206.90. I would so order without remanding the matter for further proceedings.