Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementattorneyappealtrialwillworkers' compensation

settlementattorneyappeal

Related Cases

Mack v. City of Minneapolis, 333 N.W.2d 744

Facts

David W. Mack, a police officer, suffered severe brain damage after being shot, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Attorney John D. Mariani was retained to represent Mack, and after a trial, Mack was awarded significant benefits, but Mariani's request for excess attorney fees was partially denied. In a separate case, William L. Young, who had a long-standing back injury, also faced issues with the adequacy of attorney fees awarded to his attorney, David C. Sandberg, after a settlement agreement was reached.

David W. Mack, a police officer for the Minneapolis Police Department, was shot while executing a search warrant, resulting in severe anoxic brain damage which left him paralyzed.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the employer was required to reimburse the employee for excess attorney fees and whether the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals had the authority to review and set aside stipulated attorney fees in settlement agreements.

The first issue, raised in the Mack case, is whether section 176.081, subd. 7, required the city to pay partial reimbursement for excess attorney fees awarded under subdivision 2 of that section.

Rule

Under Minn.Stat. § 176.081, subd. 7, employers must reimburse employees for a portion of attorney fees awarded in excess of $250, and the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals has discretion in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees, even if stipulated in a settlement agreement.

Under the terms of Minn.Stat. § 176.081, subd. 7 (1982), an employer is required to pay partial reimbursement to employee for excess attorney fees awarded under subdivision 2 of that section.

Analysis

The court found that the statutory language mandated partial reimbursement for excess attorney fees when conditions were met. It also determined that the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals could review attorney fees despite stipulations in settlement agreements, as the interests of clients and attorneys do not always align. The court emphasized the need for detailed findings to ensure that attorney fees are reasonable and fair.

We hold that where, as here, the conditions of subdivision 7 are met, such partial reimbursement of excess attorney fees is mandatory.

Conclusion

The court reversed in part and remanded the case for further findings on attorney fees, affirming in part the decisions regarding the adequacy of fees awarded. The court underscored the importance of detailed findings to support fee determinations.

Case No. C0-82-357 is reversed in part and remanded; Case No. C3-82-658 is affirmed in part and remanded.

Who won?

The employees prevailed in part, as the court ruled that they were entitled to partial reimbursement for excess attorney fees and that the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals must provide adequate findings regarding fee awards.

The court of appeals has discretion in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees notwithstanding a stipulation for settlement which undertakes to fix attorney fees.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Taylor v. Sheldon, 172 Ohio St. 118, 173 N.E.2d 892, 15 O.O.2d 206

Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Harman Mining Corp., 264 Va. 279, 568 S.E.2d 671

Reed v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App.4th 448, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 842, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8278, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,183

In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, 264 F.3d 712, 2001-2 Trade Cases P 73,407, 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 736

Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985, 68 USLW 4132, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1352, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1897, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 915, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 122