{ "id": 1756253, "name": "HOT SPRING COUNTY BICENTENNIAL PARK and FIDELITY and GUARANTY COMPANY v. G. A. WALKER", "name_abbreviation": "Hot Spring County Bicentennial Park & Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Walker", "decision_date": "1981-01-14", "docket_number": "CA 80-407", "first_page": "688", "last_page": "692", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "271 Ark. 688" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "610 S.W.2d 268" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "244 Ark. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717854 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/244/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 Ark. 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1616820 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0699-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 313, "char_count": 6033, "ocr_confidence": 0.725, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1899039996582867e-07, "percentile": 0.5911321470865676 }, "sha256": "92fddf2c4c33f9d8c1396f2b14c8ae05609b49d604dce9705ce37e4e428c7ba1", "simhash": "1:53642bdca1a6d75b", "word_count": 979 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:30.070289+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Glaze, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "HOT SPRING COUNTY BICENTENNIAL PARK and FIDELITY and GUARANTY COMPANY v. G. A. WALKER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nThis appeal is from a finding by the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission that appellants were liable for the payment of attorney\u2019s fees on the controverted portion of the lump sum award based on the present value computation of claimant\u2019s compensation benefits, unlimited by the application of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1310(c)(2) (Repl. 1976).\nThe facts are not at issue in this case so we will summarize briefly. Appellee was employed by appellant, Hot Spring County Bicentennial Park, and sustained an injury to his back on June 4, 1976. After retaining counsel, appellee filed a claim for Workers\u2019 Compensation Benefits against appellant, who admitted that claimant had sustained a total disability as a result of this injury and a pre-existing injury of 50% to his body as a whole. Benefits in excess of 50% were controverted by appellant, and appellee contended that he was permanently and totally disabled. On January 15, 1980, the full Commission affirmed an award of the Administrative Law Judge, finding that claimant was totally and permanently disabled as a result of the above-described injury. Appellants were ordered to pay maximum attorneys\u2019 fees allowable on the controverted portion of the award. Following a petition by counsel for appellee to pay attorneys\u2019 fees in a lump sum, appellants denied liability for any attorneys\u2019 fees based upon amounts exceeding the first $50,000.00 payable to the claimant in weekly benefits. Appellee contends that appellant is liable for attorneys\u2019 fees based on the entire amount of the award, including the portion which exceeds $50,000.00. The cause was then referred to the Administrative Law Judge who found appellants liable for payment of fees based on the entire award with the fee to be reduced to present value, and, following an appeal the full Commission by a vote of two to one affirmed the findings of the Administrative Law Judge.\nThe relevant portion of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1310(c)(2) (Repl. 1976) provides:\n\u201cThe first fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) of weekly benefits for death or permanent disability shall be paid by the employer or his insurance carrier in the manner provided in this Act. An employee or dependent of an employee who receives a total of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) in weekly benefits shall be eligible to continue to draw benefits at the rates prescribed in this Act but all such benefits in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) shall be payable from the Death and Permanent Total Disability Bank Fund ...\u201d\nThe relevant portion of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1332 (Repl. 1976) provides:\n\u201cFees for legal services rendered in respect of a claim shall not be valid unless approved by the Commission, and such fees shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) on the first one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) of compensation, or part thereof, twenty percent (20%) of all sums in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) but less than three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) of compensation, and ten percent (10%) on all sums in excess of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) of compensation. Whenever the Commission finds that a claim has been controverted, in whole or in part, the Commission shall direct that fees for legal services be paid by the employer. or carrier in addition to compensation awarded, and such fees shall be allowed only on the amount of compensation controverted and awarded ...\u201d\nAppellant argues that the statute clearly limits the payment of attorneys\u2019 fees by the carrier to the amount of compensation \u201cawarded\u201d for which the carrier is liable. We disagree. The language of the statute provides that \u201csuch fees shall be allowed on only the amount of compensation controverted and awarded.\u201d There is no language in the above-referenced statute limiting the award of the attorneys\u2019 fees to amounts which the employer and its carrier both controvert and owe. The test is that fees are calculated on the amount controverted and awarded.\nAppellants further argue that claimant in this case has only been \u201cawarded\u201d a maximum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) against appellants, and therefore that is the maximum upon which attorneys\u2019 fees can be calculated. This argument misses the point.\nOne of the purposes of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1332 is to place the burden of litigation expense on the party which made it necessary by controverting the claim. Placing the responsibility for attorneys\u2019 fees of the employee on the employer and his carrier serves to encourage prompt and honest settlements, and to compensate employees for delay and litigation expense. Aluminum Co. of America v. Henning, 260 Ark. 699, 543 S.W. 2d 480 (1976).\nAppellant has not argued that the award of the maximum allowable fees in this case was an abuse of discretion and, since the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission has much discretion in fixing and approving the amount of attorneys\u2019 fees, we do not consider the issue of whether or not the maximum award in this case was excessive. Sisk v. Philpot, 244 Ark. 79, 423 S.W. 2d 871 (1968).\nWe hold that Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1332, which provides that attorneys\u2019 fees shall be allowed only on the amount of compensation controverted and awarded, is not limited by the application of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1310(c)(2) limiting the liability of the carrier and employer to the first fifty thousand dollars in weekly benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission, awarding attorneys\u2019 fees to appellee on the controverted portion of the award in lump sum based upon the present value computation of claimant\u2019s compensation benefits, unlimited by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1310(c)(2), but with appropriate credit for fees previously paid.\nAffirmed.\nGlaze, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Laser, Sharp & Huckabay, P.A., for appellant.", "Youngdahl & Larrison, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HOT SPRING COUNTY BICENTENNIAL PARK and FIDELITY and GUARANTY COMPANY v. G. A. WALKER\nCA 80-407\n610 S.W. 2d 268\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 14, 1981\nLaser, Sharp & Huckabay, P.A., for appellant.\nYoungdahl & Larrison, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0688-01", "first_page_order": 734, "last_page_order": 738 }