Murphy v. Vanderpool
This text of Murphy v. Vanderpool (Murphy v. Vanderpool) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendants have submitted arguments in response to plaintiff's motion and his attorney's statement of time and services, but have not requested an evidentiary hearing. Consequently, the motion is resolved based upon the written submissions of the parties.
The Industrial Commission and the Court of Appeals have each considered this case on three occasions. In the most recent Full Commission Opinion and Award in this matter, filed August 5, 1994, plaintiff's attorney was awarded $16,062.50 as a reasonable attorney's fee for valuable services rendered to plaintiff in the five preceding reviews of this record, and defendants were ordered to pay this pursuant to N.C.G.S. §
Based upon the written submissions of the parties, the undersigned find that the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals from the August 5, 1994 Full Commission Opinion and Award; that the Court of Appeals' decision filed November 21, 1995 affirmed orders for the payment of benefits; that the plaintiff's attorney spent a total of 26.5 hours during the period September 9, 1994 through November 21, 1995 on matters relating to this claim, and that the predominate issues during that period were those raised by defendants' appeal; that plaintiff's counsel receives up to $150 an hour for similar services; and that, in light of the services rendered, the skill required, the results achieved, and the contingent nature of the fee contract, including the delay in payment such contracts entail, a fair and reasonable additional fee for plaintiff's attorney's efforts opposing defendants' appeal is $3,312.50.
We note that we failed to reiterate for a third time in our 1994 award our unappealed approval of plaintiff's counsel's fee contract, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §
Consequently, IT IS ORDERED that the defendants shall comply with the affirmed 5 August 1994 award of the Commission, and to the extent it has not heretofore done so, shall pay in one lump sum accrued benefits due the plaintiff, subject to an attorney's fee of 25% of accrued benefits, excluding interest per N.C.G.S. §
S/ _______________ J. RANDOLPH WARD COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
S/ ________________ J. HOWARD BUNN, JR. CHAIRMAN
S/ _______________ THOMAS J. BOLCH COMMISSIONER
JRW/Jss/ 7/15/96
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Murphy v. Vanderpool, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-vanderpool-ncworkcompcom-1996.