Summary
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed an order upholding a workers’ compensation judge’s approval of TTech Holdings, Inc.’s petition to enforce a compromise and release agreement concerning its subrogation lien from a third-party recovery. The court held that the agreement entitled the employer to one-third of the gross third-party settlement and did not require the employer to pay a pro rata share of attorney’s fees and costs. The court also denied the employer’s request for appellate counsel fees and costs.
Holdings
- The employer was not required to pay a pro rata share of attorney’s fees and costs from the third-party recovery because the approved Compromise and Release Agreement expressly entitled the employer to one-third of the gross third-party settlement or award, and the claimant did not establish grounds to set aside the agreement.
- The employer was not entitled to appellate counsel fees and costs because the claimant’s counsel’s conduct was not obdurate or vexatious and the appeal was not deemed frivolous or taken solely for delay.
Questions Presented
- Whether the employer was required to pay a pro rata share of attorney’s fees and costs under Section 319 of the Workers’ Compensation Act despite the Compromise and Release Agreement’s lack of express language addressing attorney’s fees.
- Whether the employer was entitled to appellate counsel fees and costs under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2744.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (3)
- Stepp v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (FairPoint Commc’ns, Inc.), 99 A.3d 598, 601 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)(followed)
- N. Penn Sanitation, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dillard), 850 A.2d 795, 798-99 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)(followed)
- Smith v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Consol. Freightways, Inc.), 111 A.3d 235 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…