Green v. DeFrank

Connecticut Appellate Court

Green v. DeFrank

33 A.3d 754, 132 Conn. App. 331, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 562

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedNovember 29, 2011

DocketAC 32948

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 33 A.3d 754 (Green v. DeFrank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Green v. DeFrank, 33 A.3d 754, 132 Conn. App. 331, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 562 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The self-represented plaintiff, Gail April Green, commenced this action to dispute the attorney’s fees paid from the proceeds of her workers’ compensation award. 1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Steven J. DeFrank, one of several attorneys who represented her. In ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the court issued a memorandum of decision, which is a concise and thoughtful statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Green v. DeFrank, 52 Conn. Sup. 160, 33 A.3d 899 (2010). We therefore adopt the decision of the trial court as our own. It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wysocki, 243 Conn. 239, 241, 702 A.2d 638 (1997).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

General Statutes § 31-280 (b) (11) (C) provides that the chairman of the workers’ compensation commission shall issue annually guidelines for the maximum fees payable to a claimant for legal services. The chairman of the workers’ compensation commission has promulgated a 20 percent cap on attorney’s fees. See www.ctworkerscomplaw.com; see also Arcano v. Board of Education, 81 Conn. App. 761, 769, 841 A.2d 742 (2004).

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The self-represented plaintiff, Gail April Green, commenced this action to dispute the attorney’s fees paid from the proceeds of her workers’ compensation award. 1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Steven J. DeFrank, one of several attorneys who represented her. In ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the court issued a memorandum of decision, which is a concise and thoughtful statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Green v. DeFrank, 52 Conn. Sup. 160, 33 A.3d 899 (2010). We therefore adopt the decision of the trial court as our own. It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wysocki, 243 Conn. 239, 241, 702 A.2d 638 (1997).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

General Statutes § 31-280 (b) (11) (C) provides that the chairman of the workers’ compensation commission shall issue annually guidelines for the maximum fees payable to a claimant for legal services. The chairman of the workers’ compensation commission has promulgated a 20 percent cap on attorney’s fees. See www.ctworkerscomplaw.com; see also Arcano v. Board of Education, 81 Conn. App. 761, 769, 841 A.2d 742 (2004).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.3d 754, 132 Conn. App. 331, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-defrank-connappct-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack