Rowland v. Griffin-Dain Management Company

North Carolina Industrial Commission

Rowland v. Griffin-Dain Management Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission

DecidedDecember 9, 1996

DocketI.C. No. 337144

StatusPublished

This text of Rowland v. Griffin-Dain Management Company (Rowland v. Griffin-Dain Management Company) 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.

Bluebook

Rowland v. Griffin-Dain Management Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff's counsel initially appealed the Executive Secretary's approval of an attorney's fee of 25% of the cash compensation payable under the agreement, rather than the 33 1/3% called for by his contract with the plaintiff. On August 22, 1995, counsel wrote the Commission's then-Acting Executive Secretary a letter (which was initially misfiled because it carried an erroneous I.C. File Number). From that letter, it appears that counsel is withdrawing his appeal per se, but requesting approval of $155.24 in expenses, the amount remaining in his trust account following disbursement to the plaintiff of the rest of the funds put in controversy by the appeal.

Consequently, IT IS ORDERED that expenses of $155.24 are APPROVED for reimbursement of plaintiff's counsel of record, and that otherwise the subject Order of the Executive Secretary is AFFIRMED and remains in force and effect from the date of its entry.

Each side shall pay its own costs.

S/ ___________________________ J. RANDOLPH WARD COMMISSIONER

CONCURRING:

S/ ___________________________ BERNADINE S. BALLANCE COMMISSIONER

S/ ___________________________ DIANNE C. SELLERS COMMISSIONER

JRW:md

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

Plaintiff's counsel initially appealed the Executive Secretary's approval of an attorney's fee of 25% of the cash compensation payable under the agreement, rather than the 33 1/3% called for by his contract with the plaintiff. On August 22, 1995, counsel wrote the Commission's then-Acting Executive Secretary a letter (which was initially misfiled because it carried an erroneous I.C. File Number). From that letter, it appears that counsel is withdrawing his appeal per se, but requesting approval of $155.24 in expenses, the amount remaining in his trust account following disbursement to the plaintiff of the rest of the funds put in controversy by the appeal.