Court Opinion

ID: 9732548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:24:52.132043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:57.259197
License: Public Domain

*289Caporale, J.,
dissenting in part.
While I agree with the majority’s disposition of Behrens’ appeal, I disagree with its adjudication of defendants’ cross-appeal.
The minor dispute concerning the Colpac presents a credibility issue, a matter which this court does not review. The remaining dispute concerning the physical therapy treatments separates into two parts. Behrens has no standing to complain as to one part and as to the remaining part seeks to overturn the very interpretation he, through his attorney, established in Behrens 1.1 fail to understand how under those circumstances it can be said that the legal positions asserted are not so lacking in merit as to be ridiculous and that this litigation is not frivolous. Neither do I understand how Behrens’ attorney could reasonably have concluded otherwise.
Accordingly, I would award defendants an attorney fee in the sum of $500 against Behrens’ attorney to apply toward the services of their attorneys in this court and remand the cause to the compensation court for the assessment of an attorney fee against Behrens’ attorney to apply toward the services of defendants’ attorneys in that court.