Court Opinion

ID: 9741258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:28.98696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.182212
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I concur wifh that part of the majority opinion which holds that the claimant did not terminate his employment voluntarily. I dissent from that portion of *670the opinion disallowing the payment of a reasonable attorney fee to the defendant-claimant for the services of his attorney in the District Court.
It is clear that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-646 (Reissue 1978) authorizes the Commissioner of Labor to pay a reasonable attorney fee from the Employment Security Administration Fund “in special cases.” That provision is disjunctive from that portion of the statute requiring that any attorney fee charged to a claimant must be approved by the Commissioner.
Where the Commissioner of Labor appeals to the courts from an award of the appeal tribunal in favor of an unemployed claimant, unless there is some provision for the payment of reasonable attorney fees for claimants, the claimants will, in all probability, have extreme difficulty in obtaining the services of counsel to protect their awards. To require a claimant to request the Commissioner of Labor to allow a reasonable attorney fee in an appeal to the courts and have the request approved or denied before entering an appearance rather than to request it in an answer filed in the District Court exalts form over substance.
In this case it is clear that the attorney fees involved are only the fees for services in the District Court, and it is clear that the claimant prayed for such fees in his answer. It is also undisputed that the Commissioner of Labor has resisted, and still resists, the allowance of any fee for the claimant’s attorney, either in the District Court or in this court. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Commissioner has denied the payment of any attorney fee out of the Employment Security Administration Fund.
Unless a decision by the Commissioner of Labor denying a request for the payment of attorney fees from the Employment Security Administration Fund is unreviewable by the courts, it should be reviewed in this case because the Commissioner of Labor has denied the payment of attorney fees from the fund and even appealed to this court on the ground that such *671fees are not allowable. It cannot be expected that he will reverse that decision, and his exercise of discretion ought to be reviewed now rather than later or not at all.
Where the Commissioner of Labor appeals to the courts from an award of the appeal tribunal to an unemployed claimant and loses the appeal, if there is any case which could be said to be a “special case” this one would be it.
If the majority opinion holds that under the statute a court cannot set or determine a reasonable attorney fee for services of an attorney in its own court without the prior approval of the Commissioner of Labor, I cannot believe the authority of the courts is so limited.
It is unconscionable to require a successful unemployment compensation claimant to defend his award in the District Court against an appeal by the Commissioner of Labor without an allowance of attorney fees, particularly when the appeal is unsuccessful and the Commissioner of Labor has the power to allow a reasonable attorney fee in “special cases.” If the statute must be so interpreted, at least the Legislature’s attention should be called to the obvious injustice.
The District Court obviously found that this case was a “special case” and quite properly awarded a reasonable attorney fee of $700. That judgment was eminently correct and should be affirmed. I would also order the payment of an additional $700 fee for services of the claimant’s attorney in this court.