10.39. Attorney Fees.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.39. Attorney Fees SummariesChapter 1010.39 Attorney FeesSee Also , Hoge v. Concrete Serv. Co., Docket No. 251,937. (November 2006). September 2006. (Order) Where claimant had been represented by two attorneys, the division of attorney fees between the two attorneys should be decided under K.S.A. 44-536, which provides that attorneys fees shall not exceed a reasonable amount for services rendered. See Madison v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 8 Kan. App. 2d 575, 663 P.2d 663 (1983). Hernandez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Docket No. 258,902. April 2006. (Order) The Board applied K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 44-510k(c) which allows for the award of costs when post award litigation occurs on a claimant's behalf. An attorney who files an Affidavit with an attached time sheet swearing to the legitimacy of the time and the accuracy of the billing statement creates a prima facie case of legitimacy with regard to the services performed and the amount of time spent. The Board found that the Affidavit and billing summary was proper and that there was no reason to question the amounts of time itemized. Foroughi v. Nurses House Call, Docket Nos. 205,741 and 208,027. But See, Dissent, two Board members would remand this matter to the ALJ for a full hearing on the issue of claimant's counsel's bills, the authenticity of each entry and its connection to the underlying issue of medical treatment. December 2005. (P/A) The Board found that claimant's attorney should receive payment for the time his paralegal expended in the post-award proceeding. The paralegal provided reasonable and appropriate services that were more than merely clerical or ministerial; therefore, they should be considered as part and parcel of the services rendered by claimant's attorney. DeBella v. Mid-West Conveyor Co., Docket No. 213,383. See Also,Golden v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Docket No. 104,145. (April 2005) April 2005. (P/A) Claimant appealed the ALJ's post-award order for attorney fees at $125 per hour and denial of claimant's request to compel respondent to pay claimant's expert witness fee. The Board affirmed the ALJ's order stating that an hourly rate of $125 and the number of hours expanded on the issue was fair and reasonable. The Board found no statutory basis to assess the cost of claimant's expert witness against respondent relying on their rationale in Deming v. National Coop Refinery, Docket No. 201,932, affirming the ALJ's order. McIntire v. Master Air Control, Docket No. 179,977. May 2004. (P/A) Post-award attorney fees requests must be presented to the ALJ for determination before being presented to the Board. Fox v. Fox's Enterprises/ Fox's Used Cars, Docket No. 258,962. April 2004. (P/A) An attorney was granted fees to be paid by the respondent under K.S.A. 44-536(g) for services rendered in opposing respondent's motion for an order determining it had satisfied its obligation under the Act. Dawson v. Dawco Mfg. Co., Inc., Docket No. 101,065. December 2003. (Award) Claimant was awarded benefits by the Board. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. While that appeal progressed, claimant requested and was granted medical treatment. The claimant's attorney later requested post award attorney's fees which were granted. The Board affirmed the award of attorney's fees. K.S.A. 44-510K permits a post award request for treatment regardless of an appeal and K.S.A. 44-536 authorizes attorney's fees in connection with such a request. Thompson v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., Docket No. 244,719. December 2003. (Order) Respondent cannot discontinue ordered TTD without first getting an order terminating those benefits from the ALJ. Gordon v. SM and P Utility Resource, Inc. Docket No. 268,105. October 2003. (Order) K.S.A. 44-536 makes no mention of expenses when discussing attorney fees. However, newly created K.S.A. 44-510K(c) does allow for costs post-award but are limited by K.S.A. 44-553 and Grant v. Chappell, 22Kan. App. 2d. 398, 916 P.2d 723 (1996). Deming vs. National Coop Refinery., Docket No. 201,932. See Also,Ford v. PPG Industries, Inc., Docket No. 242,425 (October 2003). September 2003. (Order) The ALJ granted Claimant's request for penalties against the respondent for failure to pay for a mobility assistive device in a timely manner. The Board reversed finding that the penalty statute, K.S.A. 44-512a, does not provide for the assessment of penalties against respondent when the ordered medical compensation has not been provided. K.S.A. 44-512a provides for assessment of penalties against the employer or its insurance...