Court Opinion

ID: 9860906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:36:04.435721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:51.858593
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY, dissenting: In my opinion, this is an extraordinary case which merits an award of attorney fees beyond that contemplated by the standard fees contract. The claimant twice refused to accept a settlement offer because he would not be guaranteed future medical payments. He sought and obtained legal counsel, and entered into a standard workers’ compensation fees agreement which must be approved by the Commission. The firm proceeded to a trial of the cause to obtain for its client a valuable benefit, i.e., any and all future medical services at whatever costs. Where a fees contract is prescribed by law and limited thereby, I do not believe that it can be fairly stated that the parties have freely entered into it. Moreover, I believe that law firms are discouraged from taking on workers’ compensation clients if the effort and expense they put forth in preparing and trying the case, perhaps through the supreme court, will not be compensated. As required, the agreement in this case conforms to section 16a of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.16a). And, as the majority acknowledges, section 16a(J) of the Act and Commission rule provide for additional fees when extraordinary services are performed on a claimant’s behalf. Contrary to my brethren, it appears clear to me that this firm performed legal services that, on these facts, were extraordinary, i.e., preparing and trying a case that could have resulted in a compensation award in excess of the written offer, and only by virtue of trying this case, obtaining the desired guarantee of all future medical benefits that had been refused. I would reverse the circuit court’s affirmation of a $100 nominal award for fees and expenses.