Court Opinion

ID: 9618036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:05:24.916654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:22.734761
License: Public Domain

John B. ROBBINS, Judge, dissenting. I agree with the majority’s holding that the attorney’s lien statute is inapplicable to this case. However, I do not agree with its holding that Rule 10 authorized the Commission to direct the appellant Death and Permanent Disability Trust Fund to withhold the appellee-claimant’s share of his attorney’s fee from each compensation check and to remit the amount withheld by separate check directly to the appel-lee-claimant’s attorney. Thus, I would reverse the Commission’s decision. The new Workers’ Compensation Act provides that, “Administrative Law Judges, the Commission, and any reviewing courts shall construe the provisions of the chapter strictly.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(3) (Repl. 1996). The claimant’s attorney in the instant case is entitled to attorney’s fees under Ark. Code Ann. § ll-9-715(a)(2)(B)(i) (Repl. 1996), which provides that fees are paid “One-half (V2) by the employer or carrier in addition to compensation awarded; and one-half (V2) by the injured employee . . . out of compensation payable to them.” Construing this statute strictly, as we must, it is the claimant that must pay attorney’s fees out of compensation paid to him. The attorney’s fee statute at issue does not even mention the Death and Permanent Disability Fund, and the Commission lacks the authority to broaden the statute and order the Fund to write separate checks to the claimant’s attorney as payment of fees owed by claimant to his attorney. In reaching its decision, the Commission relied on Rule 10, which provides, “In all cases where the petition for a fee is presented by attorneys or representatives of a claimant and a fee is granted, the fee shall be paid by separate check.” However, when promulgated, Rule 10 could not have contemplated payment of the claimant’s part of his attorney’s fees. This is so because Rule 10 became effective in 1982, and the statute requiring the claimant to pay half of the attorney’s fees was not enacted until 1987. Before 1987 only the employer, and not the claimant, could be ordered to pay attorney’s fees. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1332 (Supp. 1985). The only logical interpretation of Rule 10 is that if an employer is ordered to pay compensation and fees, it writes separate checks to the claimant and claimant’s attorney. But Rule 10 does not stand for the proposition that a claimant’s portion of the attorney’s fees shall be withheld, and paid on claimant’s behalf, by the entity paying the compensation. It is my view that strict construction of the workers’ compensation law mandates that the claimant is responsible for his own attorney’s fees, and that the Commission erred in ordering appellant to pay the fees on claimant’s behalf. If the method of paying attorney’s fees in workers’ compensation cases is to be changed, I submit that effecting such change is a matter for the legislature and not the appellate courts. I respectfully dissent.