 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzales v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division12/8/1999
Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge
Margie Marie Gonzales (Gonzales) appeals from the district court order awarding attorney=s fees of $2,200.00, which was considerably less than the $4,205.25 requested by her attorney. The district court=s order did not explain how it arrived at the attorney=s fee award. The district court also declined to rule on a motion for reconsideration requesting the court to set forth the specific reasons for the denial of the fees in accordance with UNC Teton Exploration Drilling v. Peyton, 774 P.2d 584 (Wyo. 1989).
We have held that the district court must include some explanation of its attorney=s fees awards to allow for appellate review. UNC Teton, 774 P.2d at 594-95. The district court=s failure to explain its award, as required by law, was an error of law. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a determination of an appropriate attorney=s fee award pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. '' 27-14-615 and 1-14-126(b) (LEXIS 1999), which shall concisely explain the district court=s action on the fee application.
ISSUES
Gonzales submits the following statement of the issues in the form of arguments:
1. The district court erred when it refused to provide a concise and clear explanation for denying attorney=s fees.
2. Based upon the undisputed evidence presented, the attorney=s fees submitted were reasonable and the district court erred as a matter of law when it denied a portion of those attorney=s fees submitted pursuant to W.S. ' 27-14-615.
The Wyoming Worker=s Compensation Division presents its statement of the issues:
The district court denied half of the Employee=s requested attorney fees, but its order contained no findings of fact or Conclusions of law.
1. Which version of the Act applies? B. Should the Court remand for findings and Conclusions?
3. Should the Court remand to require a hearing?
D. Should the Court award the full amount of fees requested, without a remand?
FACTS
This case has been before us previously for resolution of Gonzales= claim for worker=s compensation benefits in Gonzales v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers= Comp. Div., 970 P.2d 865 (Wyo. 1998).
Gonzales injured her back at work in 1993 and received worker=s compensation benefits for that injury. Id. at 867. However, the Workers= Compensation Division (Division) denied her claims for medical benefits and permanent partial impairment benefits for her thoracic back condition, and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) affirmed the Division=s denial of benefits. Id. at 868-69. Gonzales appealed to the district court, which affirmed the hearing examiner=s decision. Id. at 869. When Gonzales filed the motion and supporting affidavit for payment of attorney=s fees of $4,205.25 and costs of $143.72, the Division objected to the amount of attorney=s fees in excess of $4,000.00 as unreasonable.
Gonzales= attorney did not request a hearing, and the district court subsequently issued its order awarding $2,200.00 in attorney=s fees, which provided, in pertinent part:
This matter having come before the Court upon the application of Nicholas Law Office, LLC for attorney=s fees; the Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that attorney=s fees and costs should be approved in the following amounts:
$2200.00 Attorney=s Fees
$143.72 Costs
The order did not include any factual findings, reasoning, or explanation for reducing the requested award from $4,205.25 to $2,200.00. Gonzales= attorney filed a motion for recons
Page 1 2 3 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|