54 Van Natta 210 (2002). DANNY R. WILLIAMS, Claimant.

Case Date:April 24, 2002
Court:Oregon
 
FREE EXCERPT
Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 210 (2002). DANNY R. WILLIAMS, Claimant 210In the Matter of the Compensation of DANNY R. WILLIAMS, ClaimantWCB Case No. 00-05692, 99-05674ORDER ON REVIEWChristopher A Slater, Claimant AttorneysJames B Northrop, SAIF Legal, Defense Attorneys Safeco Legal, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl, Bock, and Phillips Polich.1The SAIF Corporation requests review of that portion of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hoguet's order that awarded claimant an $8,850 assessed attorney fee pursuant to ORS 656.386(1). On review, the issue is attorney fees. We modify. FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the ALJ's "Findings of Fact." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION Claimant filed an occupational disease claim for a right shoulder degenerative AC joint condition with two successive employers. The respective insurers (SAIF and SAFECO) issued compensability/responsibility denials of the claimed condition. (Exs. 48; 56; 63; 64). Claimant requested a hearing. The ALJ determined that claimant's right shoulder condition was compensable and assigned responsibility for that condition to SAIF. Applying the factors set forth in OAR 438-015-0010(4) and considering claimant's counsel's uncontested statement of services, the ALJ awarded, pursuant to ORS 656.386(1), an $8,850 assessed attorney fee, payable by SAIF. On Board review, SAIF asserts that the ALJ's attorney fee award was excessive. In particular, SAIF contends that the ALJ improperly applied a 1 After consultation with the Department of Justice, this Board has chosen to exercise its right to issue orders as a panel of three pursuant to ORS 656.718(2) and (3). 54 Van Natta 210 (2002)211"contingency multiplier."2 SAIF argues that an assessed attorney fee in the range of $3,500 to $4,000 is appropriate. Claimant responds that the ALJ's attorney fee award was not based on a "contingency multiplier" and that the $8,850 assessed attorney fee is reasonable considering the factors enumerated in OAR 438-015-0010(4).3 Additionally, claimant asserts that he entitled to an additional attorney fee of $1,000 pursuant to ORS 656.308(2)(d), for prevailing over SAIF's responsibility denial. We review the attorney fee issue de novo. Claimant's counsel spent 29.5 hours on the case. However, time devoted to the case is but one factor we consider in determining a reasonable...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP