Chamberlain v. American Airlines

1987 OK 62, 740 P.2d 717, 1987 Okla. LEXIS 213
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 14, 1987
Docket66017
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 1987 OK 62 (Chamberlain v. American Airlines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chamberlain v. American Airlines, 1987 OK 62, 740 P.2d 717, 1987 Okla. LEXIS 213 (Okla. 1987).

Opinion

KAUGER, Justice.

The only issue presented by the petitioner/claimant, Billy Dean Chamberlain, is whether, after he was awarded compensation for permanent total disability, the attorney fees awarded to his lawyer should be commuted to a lump-sum payment or if the fees should be paid periodically. We find that pursuant to 85 O.S. 1981 §§ 22(1), 41(B) and 48, attorney fees should be commuted to a lump sum.

The respondents and cross-petitioners, American Airlines and Travelers Insurance Company, assert that both the trial court and the review panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court erred by failing to credit their payments for fourteen weeks of compensation mandated by 85 O.S. 1981 § 22, 1 and for wages paid to the claimant in lieu of compensation for a four-month period prior to the award for permanent total disability. We find that 85 O.S. 1981 § 41.1 prohibits any deduction from the amount of the claimant’s award or any credit for payments made either in lieu of compensation or for the satutorily mandated fourteen weeks of compensation.

The trial court found that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled as the result of multiple surgeries for hernias. It awarded compensation at the statutory rate of $212.00 per week combined with a lump-sum payment of $14,204.00 for the sixty-seven weeks which had accrued at the time of the award. In addition, the claimant’s award for attorney fees was commuted to a lump-sum of $21,200.00 with the proviso that the employer, American Airlines, could recover the fees at the rate of 10% per week from the weekly payments made to the claimant. The review panel affirmed both the award for permanent total disability and the attorney fees, but it reversed the manner of payment of the attorney fees. Under the panel’s formula, the attorney was to be paid $2,840.80 from the accrued portion of the award and $212.00 every fifth week for a period not to exceed five-hundred weeks. In essence, the review panel’s decision prohibited any payment to the claimant every fifth week.

I

ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASES MAY NOT BE SATISFIED BY DEPRIVING THE RECIPIENT OF WEEKLY PERIODIC PAYMENTS

Once it has been determined that a claimant is entitled to recover under the Workers’ Compensation Act, there are three provisions which must be considered before the disbursement of benefits can be accomplished: 1) 85 O.S. 1981 § 22(1), 2 2) *719 85 O.S. 1981 § 41(B), 3 and 3) 85 O.S. 1981 § 48. 4 In the event of permanent total disability, § 22(1) provides that 66%% of the employee’s weekly wages shall be paid to the employee. 5 Section 41(B) states that awards for permanent total disability are to be made under § 22, and that the Court shall make a determination that the claimant will be entitled to receive weekly income benefits. 6 Section 48 mandates that “claims for compensation or benefits due under the Workers’ Compensation Act shall not be assigned, released or commuted ...” except as provided under the Act, and that “benefits shall be paid only to employees ...”. 7

All three sections of the Act contain mandatory and directory language rather than permissive and discretionary verbiage. 8 When the mandate of the Act is followed, as a matter of law, the claimant must receive weekly income benefits.

II

ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS IN CASES WHERE THE CLAIMANT IS FOUND PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED ARE TO BE PAID IN A LUMP-SUM

The determination that attorney fee awards may not be satisfied by depriving the compensation claimant of weekly benefits is readily reached through a careful reading of the statutes. The method by which the employer is to recover such fees if there is an award for permanent total disability is a more difficult problem. The respondents argue that because the review panel is empowered to modify the trial court’s order regarding the way attorney fees are paid, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the modification. We agree with the respondents that we have long-recognized that whether to award an attorney fee is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court. 9 We do not agree that this recognition removes all questions involving attorney fees from our jurisdiction, or that under appropriate circumstances, the findings of the Workers’ Compensation Court concerning attorney fees may not be reviewed on appeal. 10

*720 The Legislature has determined that the American rule, which provides that in the absence of a statute or a contract each party to a suit is required to pay his own attorney fees, 11 prevails insofar as attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are concerned. However, the Legislature also has recognized that claimants entitled to compensation may not, without the benefit of the award, be able to afford a lawyer. Because in the absence of bad faith there is no common law right to recover one’s attorney fees from an adverse party, 12 any recovery here rests upon the statute. 13 The Act provides for a court-approved contingent-fee arrangement by which attorney fees are to be paid from the claimant’s award. 14 Such attorney fees are necessarily post-judgment awards because the claimant must prevail before attorney fees may be imposed.

In cases involving permanent total disability, the question regarding attorney fees is not whether the trial court may award a lump-sum fee, 15 but whether it must do so in order to comply with Title 85. Therefore, we could summarily affirm the trial court’s award of a lump-sum fee. We choose not to do so, mostly because of the existing confusion about how these fees are to be awarded, the need to settle existing uncertainty in order to avoid future problems, and the inconsistent manner in which attorney fees are ordered to be paid. 16 In most cases involving general provisions authorizing the trial court in workers’ compensation cases to commute unaccrued compensation to a lump sum, the court may also properly commute a portion of the claimant’s award to pay the *721 attorney’s fee. 17 Additionally, when a statute provides that the fee shall be reasonable, the term “reasonable” is interpreted to encompass both the amount and kind of fee — lump sum or periodic. 18

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn
2016 OK 120 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2016)
HEATH v. GUARDIAN INTERLOCK NETWORK, INC.
2016 OK 18 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2016)
Tulsa County Budget Board v. Tulsa County Excise Board
2003 OK 103 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
Keating v. Edmondson
2001 OK 110 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2001)
Grant v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
2000 OK 41 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2000)
Valenti v. Special Indemnity Fund
2000 OK CIV APP 81 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2000)
Comerford v. Pryor Foundry
1999 OK CIV APP 82 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1999)
City of Purcell v. Wilbanks
1998 OK CIV APP 170 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1998)
Hix v. White Swan Food Services
1996 OK 132 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1996)
Batt v. Special Indemnity Fund
1993 OK 163 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1993)
Barclay v. Special Indemnity Fund
1993 OK CIV APP 160 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1993)
Burr v. Snitker
1993 OK CIV APP 163 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1993)
Alonzo v. Homeland Stores, Inc.
1993 OK CIV APP 149 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1993)
Ailey v. D & B Construction Co.
1993 OK CIV APP 103 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1993)
TRW/Reda Pump v. Brewington
1992 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1992)
White v. Woods County District No. 3, State Insurance Fund
1992 OK CIV APP 17 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1992)
Bond v. Fox Building Supply
1992 OK 19 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1992)
Oklahoma Department of Transportation v. Barnes
1991 OK CIV APP 61 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1991)
State Ex Rel. MacY v. Freeman
1991 OK 59 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1987 OK 62, 740 P.2d 717, 1987 Okla. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlain-v-american-airlines-okla-1987.