No. 07-06469 (2008). ALMA R. SALGADO, Claimant.

• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2008. No. 07-06469 (2008). ALMA R. SALGADO, Claimant In the Matter of the Compensation of ALMA R. SALGADO, ClaimantWCB Case No. 07-06469ORDER ON REVIEWAdams Day and Hill, Claimant Attorneys Bruce A Bornholdt, SAIF Legal Salem, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Langer, Weddell, and Herman. Member Langer dissents.The SAIF Corporation requests review of that portion of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Spangler's order that awarded a $9,000 assessed attorney fee under ORS 656.386(1). On review, the issue is attorney fees. We affirm. FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the ALJ's "Findings of Fact." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION SAIF asserts that the ALJ's attorney fee of $9,000 was unreasonable and should be reduced.(fn1) See ORS 656.386(1)(a) (allowing "a reasonable attorney fee to the claimant's attorney" where "a claimant finally prevails against [a carrier's] denial"). SAIF does not suggest what a reasonable fee would be in this matter, but avers that $9,000 is unreasonable. We disagree, reasoning as follows. We review the attorney fee issue de novo, considering the specific contentions raised on review, in light of the factors set forth in OAR 438-015-0010(4) as applied to the particular circumstances of this case. See Schoch v. Leupold and Stevens, 325 Or 112, 118-19 (1997). Those factors are: (1) the time devoted to the case; (2) the complexity of the issue(s) involved; (3) the value of the interest involved; (4) the skill of the attorneys; (5) the nature of the proceedings; (6) the benefit secured for the represented party; (7) the risk in a particular case that an attorney's efforts may go uncompensated; and (8) the assertion of frivolous issues or defenses. SAIF narrows its objection to the ALJ's award to three factors: (1) the time devoted to the case; (2) the complexity of the issues involved; and (3) the nature of the proceedings. Momentarily putting aside that these constitute only three of the required eight factors, we address each factor in turn. Regarding its first objection, SAIF argues that, in the absence of a statement of services, it is not possible to know how much time was devoted to the case. Although SAIF may be correct that a statement of services may be useful in making a fee determination, we do not require such a submission. Here, the record supports that claimant spent...