Kasserman and Bowman, PLLC v. Cline

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that West Virginia Code § 23-5-16 does not authorize an attorney to charge a contingency fee based on the settlement of medical benefits in a workers' compensation claim. The court affirmed the circuit court's order denying the law firm's motion for summary judgment and granting judgment in favor of the Insurance Commissioner.

Holdings

1. West Virginia Code § 23-5-16 does not authorize an attorney to charge a fee based upon the settlement of medical benefits in connection with a workers' compensation claim.
2. Technical mootness did not preclude review because the issue was of great public interest and capable of repetition yet likely to evade appellate review.
3. The court declined to decide the abandoned issue concerning a fee based on obtaining an earlier onset date for a preexisting permanent-total-disability award.

Questions Presented

1. Whether West Virginia Code § 23-5-16 authorizes an attorney to charge a fee based on the settlement of medical benefits in a workers' compensation claim.
2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as technically moot after the law firm's client-defendants were voluntarily dismissed.
3. Whether the court should decide the abandoned issue concerning fees based on obtaining an earlier onset date for permanent total disability benefits.

Disposition

affirmed