Court Opinion

ID: 9844202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:58:54.664034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:29.719083
License: Public Domain

TROUT, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority. I agree that the Industrial Commission (Commission) has authority to promulgate rules and regulations designed to effectuate the purpose of the Worker’s Compensation Act (Act); that is, rules and regulations which are designed to provide sure and certain relief for injured workers and their families. I.C. §§ 72-201, 72-508. However, I do not agree that the attorney fee regulation is reasonably related to the purpose of the Act or that the adoption of the attorney fee regulation is a reasonable exercise of the Commission’s rulemaking authority granted by the Act.
The Commission has interpreted I.C. § 72-803 as vesting it with the authority to adopt the regulation at issue. Section 72-803, in pertinent part, provides that “[cjlaims of attorneys ... shall be subject to approval by the commission.”
Pursuant to I.C. § 72-803, the Commission has adopted regulations providing for a maximum contingency fee to be charged by a workers’ compensation claimant’s attorney. The specific regulation at issue provides:
4. Maximum attorney fee to be charged by a claimant’s counsel. After the effective date of this regulation, any contingent fee agreement between counsel and a claimant in a workers’ compensation case shall provide that the amount of attorney fees will not exceed 25% of any new money received by the claimant, whether such new money is acquired pursuant to a Lump Sum Settlement Agreement, other Agreement, Mediation, or an award of the Commission.
a. Provided, however, that after hearing by the Commission and upon its own motion, the Commission may award attorney fees up to 30% of new money awarded.
b. In cases where a claimant is deemed totally and permanently disabled, attorney fees may be deducted from no more than 500 weeks of workers’ compensation benefits.
This Court has held that where an administrative agency has authority to promulgate rules, those rules “are invalid which do not carry into effect the legislature’s intent as revealed by the existing statutory law, and which are not reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation.” Holly Care Center v. State, Dept. of Employment, 110 Idaho 76, 78, 714 P.2d 45, 47 (1986). Rules which are “merely arbitrary or capricious” will not be upheld. Id., at 78, 714 P.2d at 47.
This Court’s inquiry should be whether the regulation in question is consonant with the legislature’s intent as expressed in the enabling statute. Holly Care, 110 Idaho at 78, 714 P.2d at 47. See also Idaho County Nursing Home v. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, 120 Idaho 933, 937, 821 P.2d 988, 992 (1991) (“[Regulations of administrative agencies are generally upheld if they are reasonably directed to the accomplishment of the purposes of the statutes under which they are established.”); Hayman v. State, Dept. of Health and Welfare, 100 Idaho 710, 714, 604 P.2d 724, 728 (1979) (reversing a district court finding that a regulation was unreasonable and capricious because the regulation was “consistent with the pertinent statutes”).
I do not believe that the attorney fee regulation satisfies this inquiry. First,, based upon the plain, obvious and rational language of the statute, Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho *144568, 572, 798 P.2d 27, 31 (1990), it is my opinion that the legislature adopted Section 72-803 in order to empower the Commission to review attorney fees at the end of a ease. Section 72-803 says nothing about mandating an appropriate attorney fee prior to the commencement of the attorney-client relationship nor does it vest the Commission with the authority to mandate a flat recovery rate for an attorney in advance of any work performed by the attorney and without any consideration given to the circumstances of the case or the time and effort involved. See Clark v. Sage, 102 Idaho 261, 629 P.2d 657 (1981) (in determining a reasonable contingency fee, the Commission must engage in a balancing process weighing a variety of factors 5). The attorney fee regulation at issue is not consonant with the legislative intent as reflected by the language of I.C. § 72-803.
Second, I do not believe the attorney fee regulation will effectuate the legislature’s intent for the Act, that is of “providing sure and certain relief for injured workmen and their families____” I.C. § 72-201. Imposing an artificial ceiling upon an attorney’s recovery without reference to some guidelines, such as the factors enumerated in Clark, will have a chilling effect on the ability of claimants to obtain qualified representation. The Court articulated this fear in a previous worker’s compensation case involving attorney fees:
It is our belief that this legislative intention to insure adequate representation and claim prosecution requires the award of reasonable attorney’s fees. Were the fees of attorneys to be kept artificially low, i.e., below market value on a per hour basis, the result would be a migration of legal talent away from this crucial area and a chilling effect on the ability of claimants to obtain representation. As the Supreme Court of New Mexico stated in Herndon v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 92 N.M. 287, 288, 587 P.2d 434, 435 (1978):
If attorneys are denied fees for work prosecuted on behalf of an injured workman, there would be a chilling effect upon the ability of an injured party to obtain adequate representation. Through their insurance companies, employers regularly obtain exceptional and well-qualified counsel to defend them in such cases. It is imperative that courts foster and protect the ability of an injured workman to obtain counsel of his choice. We must avoid a policy or a practice which would discourage [such] representation....
Hogaboom v. Economy Mattress, 107 Idaho 13, 17, 684 P.2d 990, 994 (1984). (emphasis in original).
The reasoning used in Hogaboom and Herndon applies to the present case. A predetermined recovery, established without regard for the nature of the ease or the anticipated time required to resolve the case, will work a great injustice upon Idaho workers entitled to qualified representation in their compensation claims. Attorneys will now be reluctant to accept small cases which often involve an initial denial of benefits. Similarly, attorneys will be leery of accepting larger cases involving complex legal issues since these often involve the time and expense of a lengthy hearing and an appeal. These consequences will undermine, not foster, the legislative policy of providing sure and certain relief to injured workers.
Third, the subject regulations were adopted in the face of overwhelming opposition. Without belaboring the point, the testimony and comments concerning the proposed regulations were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the adoption of the proposed regulations. It is my opinion that the Commission did not “consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule” as required by I.C. § 67-5203(3). The Commission’s failure to consider these submissions further convinces me *145that the Commission’s actions were arbitrary and capricious.
Finally, I do not believe that the additional five percent recovery, which the Commission may award on its own motion, will in any way mitigate the unacceptable effect of these regulations. The Commission has not identified any guidelines by which it will, sua sponte, award this additional amount. I cannot help but think that in the absence of such guidelines, this provision, too, will produce arbitrary and inequitable results.
Based on the foregoing, I would grant the petition for a writ of prohibition.

. The following factors were enumerated by the Court: (1) the anticipated time and labor required to perform the legal services properly; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the legal issues involved in the matter; (3) the fees customarily charged for similar legal services; (4) the possible total recovery if successful; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances of the case; (6) the nature and length of the attorney-client relationship; (7) the experience, skill and reputation of the attorney; (8) the ability of the client to pay for the legal services to be rendered; and (9) the risk of no recovery. 102 Idaho at 265-66, 629 P.2d at 661-62.