Munoz v. JBS USA, LLC, 051519 MNWC, WC19-6253

Case DateMay 15, 2019
CourtMinnesota
EMMA MUNOZ, Employee/Respondent,
v.
JBS USA, LLC, and SEDGWICK CLAIMS, Employer-Insurer/Respondents,
and
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD F. NOACK, Attorney/Appellant.
No. WC19-6253
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals
May 15, 2019
         ATTORNEY FEES. The compensation judge appropriately applied the Irwin factors in determining how to divide reasonable attorney fees from a settlement between an employee’s current and former attorneys, and substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that both attorneys provided valuable legal services to the employee and her division of the attorney fee.           Mark J. Thalberg, Schneider & Madsen, Willmar, Minnesota, for the Employee/Respondent.           William G. Laak, McCollum, Crowley, Moschet, Miller & Laak, Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota, for the Employer-Insurer/Respondents. Vincent A. Peterson, Law Office of Donald F. Noack, Mound, Minnesota, for the Appellant.           Determined by: Sean M. Quinn, Judge, Patricia J. Mlun, Chief Judge, Deborah K. Sundquist, Judge           Compensation Judge: Catherine A. Dallner          Affirmed.           OPINION           SEAN M. QUINN, Judge.          This case involves an attorney fee dispute. The employee’s current attorney and her former attorney both claimed 100 percent of attorney fees withheld from a stipulation for settlement. Following a hearing, a compensation judge awarded approximately two-thirds of the fee to the current attorney and approximately one-third of the fee to the former attorney. The former attorney appeals. Because the compensation judge’s findings and order are supported by substantial evidence and the law, we affirm.          BACKGROUND          The employee, Emma Munoz, suffered injuries while employed by the employer, JBS USA, LLC, on February 4 and November 7, 2016. Although the employer and its insurer admitted the injuries, the nature and extent of the employee’s injuries were subject to dispute.          In August 2017, the employee stopped working due to the effects of her injuries and the employer and insurer began to voluntarily pay temporary total disability (TTD) benefits to the employee. Also in August 2017, the employee hired the Law Offices of Donald F. Noack to represent her in her workers’ compensation claim. She signed a standard workers’ compensation retainer agreement with attorney Noack. Other than her initial meeting with attorney Noack, which the employee described as hurried, lasting 20 minutes, the employee had no further direct contact with him, by phone or in person.          The Noack law firm, through attorney Noack, attorney Vincent Peterson, and paralegal staff, prepared and reviewed various correspondence with the employee, the employee’s qualified rehabilitation consultants, the defense attorney, the Department of Labor and Industry, and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). They reviewed medical records, prepared and filed a claim petition, made discovery demands, and responded to the employer and insurer’s discovery demands. They also engaged in email correspondence and reviewed intervention pleadings.          In December 2017, a mediation took place between defense counsel and attorney Peterson regarding the employee’s claims. Before the date of the mediation, there is no evidence in the record that anyone from the Noack law firm contacted the employee to discuss evaluation of her claim or to advise her that a mediation was to take place. There is no evidence in the record that the Noack law firm made a settlement demand on behalf of their client. At some point during the mediation, attorney Peterson called the employee and presented the defense offer, which he recommended she accept. After attorney Peterson told her to decide as quickly as possible, she asked for 15 minutes to think about the offer and he agreed. Approximately 15 minutes later, she called him back and accepted the offer. The next day, she withdrew her acceptance of the offer. She testified at the hearing that she was uncomfortable accepting the offer, having felt pressured and having no understanding of the settlement agreement.          Shortly after rejecting the settlement proposal, the employee contacted attorney Mark Thalberg. A few weeks later she hired attorney...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT