4-167-696 (1998). PERRY ALDERIN.

• Case Date: December 04, 1998
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1998. 4-167-696 (1998). PERRY ALDERIN INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF PERRY ALDERIN Claimant, v. CITY OF GREELEY, Employer, and SELF-INSURED, Respondent.W. C. No. 4-167-696ORDER OF REMAND The claimant's former attorney, John Hoyman (Hoyman or Hoyman firm) seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Gandy (ALJ), which ordered Hoyman to pay the claimant $14, 630, plus interest, in previously collected attorney fees. Hoyman argues that the ALJ erroneously applied the doctrine of quatum meruit by basing the award of attorney fees on an hourly rate rather than a contingency rate. We set the order aside and remand for entry of a new order. The claimant allegedly sustained four industrial injuries between May 12, 1990 and January 25, 1993. The claimant retained Hoyman's firm to represent him with respect to each of these injuries. In September 1993, the claimant entered into a contingent fee agreement to pay Hoyman twenty-five percent "of any and all benefits received hereafter" with respect to the November 1990 injury. On January 12, 1994, the claimant entered into similar contingent fee agreements with respect to the other three injuries. The claims for the four injuries were consolidated in March 1994. In January 1996, the claimant, represented by an attorney from Hoyman's firm, attended a settlement conference and reached a tentative agreement to settle the consolidated claims for $195, 000. A dispute arose between the claimant and the Hoyman firm concerning whether or not $50, 000 of the settlement proceeds represented payment for future medical expenses, and if so, whether Hoyman was entitled to recover attorney fees on this amount. Because of this dispute, the claimant and Hoyman agreed to place $10, 000 in escrow (representing twenty percent of $50, 000). Otherwise, the parties agreed to distribute the settlement proceeds with Hoyman receiving $29, 000 (twenty percent of $145, 000) and the claimant receiving the balance. The dispute concerning the $10, 000 held in escrow was resolved adversely to Hoyman. The claimant then sought a hearing arguing that the four contingent fee agreements were invalid and Hoyman should be restricted to recovering attorney fees (on the $145, 000) under the theory of quatum meruit. The ALJ found that Hoyman admitted the...