Court Opinion

ID: 9734859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:48:27.029278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:51.733725
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Montgomery, J.:
I am of the opinion that the majority has denied appellants their day in court and the opportunity to demonstrate that the fee paid by appellee to his attorney in the third-party action was unreasonable. The employer and its carrier are not required to share in every such fee but only in “reasonable attorney’s fees”.1
*405The reason assigned for the majority ruling is that appellants did not question the reasonableness of the fee at the time of the third-party settlement on July 28, 1956, when the fee was paid. However, it was not until our decision filed June 11, 1958, in Soliday v. Hires Turner Glass Co., 187 Pa. Superior Ct. 44, 142 A. 2d 425,2 that it was definitely decided that the act referred to in footnote (1) was applicable to future payments of compensation. Such being the case, appellants should not be precluded from raising the issue thereafter, when additional demands were made upon them by the injured employe.
I am of the further opinion that the Workmen’s Compensation Board is a proper tribunal to resolve this issue.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

 Section 319 of Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1915, June 2, P. D. 736, as amended by the Act of 1951, May 29, P. L. 507, 77 P.S. 671.

 Furia, v. Philadelphia, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 50, 118 A. 2d 236, was not a case under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and therefore did not establish such liability.