A recent Lexology article by Meredith L. Pendergrass of Goldberg Segalla LLP, “Paying for Claimants’ Attorney Fees is the Exception to the Rule in D.C.,” reports on a recent appellate decision on attorney fee entitlement and recovery in workers’ compensation claims before the federal circuit. The article was posted with permission. The article reads:
The D.C. Court of Appeals was recently presented with the opportunity to weigh in on the prerequisites for ordering employers and insurers to pay for claimants’ litigation fees and costs in workers’ compensation claims. In the case of Kelly v. D.C. Dep’t of Employment Servs., No. 18-AA-13, 2019 WL 4073672 (D.C. Aug. 29, 2019), the court refused to require the employer and insurer to bear the cost of the claimant’s attorney fees.
In Washington, D.C., there are only two limited circumstances where the employer and insurer will pay attorney fees for the claimant. D.C. Code Section 32-1530 (a) provides the ability for the claimant to seek payment of his attorney fees if employer and insurer do not pay any compensation within 30 days for the claim being filed and the claimant uses the services of an attorney to subsequently obtain benefits.
D.C. Code Section 32-1530 (b) further provides that attorney fees may be awarded against the employer and insurer in a specific set of circumstances. This subsection requires the employer and insurer to have initially paid compensation in the claim and then a controversy arises as to the amount of further benefits due. In order to be held to pay the claimant’s attorney’s fee in this situation, the employer and insurer have to reject a recommendation by the Mayor regarding resolution of the amount in controversy, and the claimant needs to then utilize the services of the attorney to obtain a greater amount than the employer and insurer offered to pay. The attorney fee awarded would only apply to the difference in the amount the employer and insurer offered to pay and the amount ultimately obtained through litigation.
The only way to obtain a recommendation from the Mayor is to attend an Informal Conference and have a claims examiner issue a Memorandum of Informal Conference. In the Kelly case, the claimant’s attorney applied for an Informal Conference to resolve a dispute regarding permanency benefits, but the employer and insurer applied for a Formal Hearing before the Informal Conference occurred. The D.C. Court of Appeals found that since the employer and insurer did not reject a recommendation from the Mayor as subsection (b) requires, then attorney fees could not be awarded against them. The D.C. Court of Appeals held that it was irrelevant that the employer and insurer made it impossible for the claimant to participate in the Informal Conference by applying for the Formal Hearing. The court cited to the American Rule for litigation, which generally requires each party to bear the burden of their own litigation costs, as well as the specificity in which the act outlines the exceptions to this rule in coming to their decision. With the Kelly case clarifying this issue, we will likely see fewer Informal Conferences going forward when it comes to litigating additional benefits owed in a claim as a way to limit overall exposure.
Meredith L. Pendergrass is an Associate at Goldberg Segalla LLP in Baltimore. She focuses her practice on defending employers, insurance carriers, and third-party administrators in workers’ compensation matters throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia. She regularly appears in both Maryland and the District of Columbia at agency-level proceedings all the way through each jurisdiction’s highest court system on appeals.