Hix v. White Swan Food Services

1996 OK 132, 930 P.2d 208, 67 O.B.A.J. 3937, 1996 Okla. LEXIS 146, 1996 WL 724719
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 18, 1996
DocketNo. 85543
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 1996 OK 132 (Hix v. White Swan Food Services) 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
Hix v. White Swan Food Services, 1996 OK 132, 930 P.2d 208, 67 O.B.A.J. 3937, 1996 Okla. LEXIS 146, 1996 WL 724719 (Okla. 1996).

Opinions

HARGRAVE, Justice.

Claimant filed a claim on September 13, 1990, alleging injury to his heart arising out of and in the course of his employment on August 15, 1990. Judge Kim West entered an order on October 23, 1992, finding claimant permanently and totally disabled and awarding benefits. The amount of the attorney fee was not determined. By order of January 6,1993, Judge West set the attorney fee at $16,401.00, to become vested at the time the award became final, to be paid 20% of the accrued portion of the award, in the lump sum of $3,280.20, and the remaining portion to be paid periodically at the rate of 20% of each weekly check paid to claimant until the attorney fee is satisfied, or to be deducted at the rate of every 5th weekly payment due to claimant.

Claimant’s attorney appealed to the court en banc, asking that the order of January 6, 1993 be modified to award the maximum attorney fee of $23,100, or that the order be reversed and remanded for a hearing to determine the appropriate attorney fee. The court en banc vacated paragraph 12 of Judge Kim West’s October 23, 1992 order and awarded the maximum attorney fee of $23,-100, to be paid periodically, by the following order:

“THAT the Court finds that the amount of $23,100 is a fair and reasonable attorney fee for services rendered by claimant’s counsel and shall become vested at the time the award herein becomes final. That said attorney fee shall be paid periodically at the rate of 20 per cent of each weekly check paid to claimant, until the attorney fee is satisfied. That at the option and agreement of the parties, said attorney fee may be deducted at the rate of every 5th weekly payment due herein to claimant until the attorney fee is recouped by respondent.”

Claimant’s attorney filed an appeal in Case No. 81,537, asserting that the attorney fee should be commuted to a lump sum in accord with the laws in effect at the time of injury and the contract between petitioner and his attorney. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division 4, Brightmire J. held that the trial court erred in ordering the attorney fee to be paid periodically because on the date the claimant was injured as well as on the date that he was adjudged permanently and totally disabled, Chamberlain v. American Airlines, 740 P.2d 717 (Okla.1987) required that the fee be commuted to a lump sum. The Court of Civil Appeals found that claimant had a vested substantive right to such an award and directed that the claimant be awarded a lump-sum fee after a quantum meruit hearing. The Court of Civil Appeals held:

“We hold that failure to apply the applicable law constituted ‘plain error’ which, regardless of whether it was raised in the trial court, requires us to vacate the order under review and remand with directions to award the claimant a lump-sum fee after conducting a quantum meruit hearing pursuant to 85 O.S.1991 § 30. That part of the order awarding the attorney’s fee is therefore vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the law. Order sustained in part, vacated in part and remanded.”

The claimant, Gene Hix, died on June 13, 1993, after receiving 154 weeks of permanent and total disability compensation. After mandate, Judge Porter held an attorney fee hearing at which claimant’s attorney asserted that he was entitled to the full amount of [210]*210$23,100 previously awarded. Respondents argued that because the claimant died, the attorney’s fee was limited to 20% of the amount actually paid to claimant. Judge Porter, by order of November 8, 1994, held that the claimant’s attorney, Mike Emmons, should be paid $23,100 in lump sum, less amounts previously paid, as a fair and reasonable attorney fee for services rendered.

Respondents appealed to the workers’ compensation court en banc on November 21, 1994, arguing that the attorney fee award was not vested at the time of claimant’s death because the Court of Civil Appeals opinion had ordered that a lump sum fee be awarded after a quantum meruit hearing. Thus, in Respondents’ opinion, the award had not become final.

Respondents argued that because the claimant had received a gross amount of $35,574 before his death, the maximum attorney fee allowable under 85 O.S. § 30 would be 20% of that amount, or $7,114.80. The workers’ compensation court en banc vacated Judge Porter’s order and entered the following order on May 5,1995:

“THAT the claimant’s attorney, Mike Em-mons, shall be paid $7,140.00 (20 per cent of 154 weeks[,] the number of weeks claimant received permanent total disability benefits prior to his death) in lump sum (less amount previously paid) as a fair and reasonable and necessary attorney fee for services reserved therein.”

The claimant’s attorney then filed the instant appeal, which was assigned to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the case, finding that they lacked jurisdiction because claimant’s attorney had not prosecuted the appeal in his own name. The Court of Civil Appeals did not address the merits of the case. We granted certiorari previously and now hold: 1) that claimant’s attorney had standing to bring the appeal and 2) that the order of the workers’ compensation court en banc should be vacated.

I. STANDING TO APPEAL

The petition for review filed in this court is styled exactly as it was below, with claimant listed as the petitioner. The nature of the decision to be reviewed is the award of attorney fees only. Respondents did not move for dismissal of the petition nor did they argue that it was improperly filed.

Title 85 O.S.1991 § 3.6 outlines appellate procedure in workers’ compensation cases. Part B provides:

“Any party litigant desiring to appeal directly from such order to the Supreme Court, shall, within twenty (20) days after a copy of the order ... has been sent by the Administrator to the parties affected, commence an action in the Supreme Court of the state to review such order, decision, or award_ Such action shall be commenced by filing with the Clerk of the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order, decision or award of the Workers’ Compensation Court sitting en banc or Judge attached to the petition by the complaint wherein the complainant or petitioner shall make his assignments or specifications as to wherein said order, decision or award is erroneous or illegal ...”

Rule 1.102, Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, provides that all parties joining in the petition for review shall be designated as “petitioner”. We have said that form does not rule over substance in evaluating documents filed in this court. Bane v. Anderson, Bryant & Co., 786 P.2d 1230, 1234 (Okla.1989). We previously have deemed non-named parties to be included within an appeal. See, Vickers v. Boyd, 836 P.2d 1269 (Okla.1992) and Fireman’s Fund v. Overton, 491 P.2d 278, 282 (Okla.1971). But see, Tatum v. Tatum, 736 P.2d 506 (Okla.1982). This Court previously has corrected the style of a case to refleet the real party in interest. See also, Tisdale v. Wheeler Bros. Grain Co., Inc., 599 P.2d 1104 (Okla.1979).

In Vickers v. Boyd, 836 P.2d 1269 (Okla.1992), a negligence action, the other party’s attorney fees were assessed against an attorney who was deemed to have acted oppressively in concealing a witness.

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)
Carillo v. Crownover
1999 OK CIV APP 2 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1998)
City of Purcell v. Wilbanks
1998 OK CIV APP 170 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1996 OK 132, 930 P.2d 208, 67 O.B.A.J. 3937, 1996 Okla. LEXIS 146, 1996 WL 724719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hix-v-white-swan-food-services-okla-1996.