ADJ11056989 · January 18, 2022

The WCJ considered the totality of itemizations, descriptions of services, and stipulated periods of representation, finding the division of attorney fees supported by evidence and legal standards.

From the decision · page 8After review of the evidence, the Court finds Ratto Law is liable to lien claimant for 60% percent of the attorney fees awarded and received, under the Stipulated Award.

Lien Claimant's itemization showed detailed labor expended securing TTD benefits and MPN list during initial discovery period.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supported awarding 60% of attorney fees to Lien Claimant as it laid foundation for case progression.

From the decision · page 8Although Exhibit B and Exhibit LC-5 list activities itemized in abbreviations, there are some line items that are more discernible in Exhibit LC-5 than Exhibit B. Exhibit LC-5 for date of service 9/19/2017, states "filing application for adjudication of claim". Date of service 9/21/2017, states "filing Petition for Penalty P/LC Sec 132(a)" for 1 hour. Date of service 9/19/2017, is described as "discussion w/ applicant" for 1 hour. Date of service 9/22/2017 states "3 letters to applicant". On 11/21/2017, the activity is described as "subpoena for

Petitioner's itemization showed time spent primarily on review activities and settlement, totaling 27.7 hours during stipulated representation period.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported awarding 40% of attorney fees to Petitioner as they secured PD and final settlement.

From the decision · page 8Dates of service listed in Ratto Law's Exhibit B for 9/6/2018, 9/10/2018 and 1 O/ l 7/2018 equals.8 of an hour and shall be excluded from their total amount of hours because the dates pre-date the stipulated period of representation. Ratto Law's adjusted total time is 27.7 hours.

Dr. Lewis opined the applicant became MMI as of his report dated 8/13/2020, during Petitioner's period of representation. Initial PQME report dated 4/5/2018 found injury on an industrial basis and surgery necessary.

From the decision · page 5Dr. Lewis' report dated April 5, 2018, page 19, Exhibit 2, finds injury on an industrial basis and the applicant is not yet MMI because right shoulder surgery is necessary. Based upon the statements made by Petitioner in its Petition for Reconsideration, the Board should ignore Lien Claimant's labor in procuring Dr. Lewis as the QME. But for Lien Claimant securing the PQME, Petitioner would not have had the benefit of relying upon the labor expended by Lien Claimant which caused Dr. Lewis to become the designated PQME. Dr. Lewis opined the applicant became MMI as of his report dated 8/13/2020, Exhibit A, page 24, during the period of time Petitioner represented the Applicant.

Regulation section 10844

The WCJ shall consider responsibility assumed by the attorney, care exercised in representing the applicant, time involved and results obtained in establishing a reasonable attorney fee.

Applied to the division of attorney fees between Petitioner and Lien Claimant.

From the decision · page 6In considering the division of attorney fees, Regulation section 10844 states, "The WCJ shall consider responsibility assumed by the attorney, care exercised in representing the applicant, time involved and results obtained." The evidence' submitted addressed numerical increments of time, dates and descriptions of how the time was spent. The WCJ considered time involved as time was itemized and described by Petitioner and Lien Claimant. All factors included in the itemizations go to the issue of time and the results obtained.

Lab. Code section 4903

Attorney fees shall not be allowed for services rendered prior to the filing of the disclosure form.

Applied to exclude time before stipulated representation periods in attorney fee calculation.

From the decision · page 8As per Lab. Code section 4903, attorney fees shall not be allowed for any services rendered prior to the filing of the disclosure form. Although neither party listed their respective disclosure forms as evidence, the parties stipulated to their respective dates of representation. Ratto Law stipulated their period of representation was from October 22, 2018 to the date of the Stipulated Award. Lien Claimant stipulated their representation was from September 19, 2017 to October 22, 2018. Since the issue is the amount of attorney fees awarded as of the date of the Stipulated Award, any dates of service after December 15, 2020 will not be taken into consideration. Dates of service after the stipulated dates of representation shall not be considered.

Detailed itemizations of attorney time and descriptions of services rendered by both Petitioner and Lien Claimant.

From the decision · page 4CONTENTION A: Petitioner contends the division of attorney fees was not supported by the facts of the case when you consider days of representation or itemized attorney time. Petitioner provides an explanation of measuring time by the hours of attorney time to equate the percentage for the allocation of the attorney fee award.

More detailed descriptions of labor expended by Lien Claimant during initial discovery and securing TTD benefits and MPN list.

From the decision · page 8Although Exhibit B and Exhibit LC-5 list activities itemized in abbreviations, there are some line items that are more discernible in Exhibit LC-5 than Exhibit B. Exhibit LC-5 for date of service 9/19/2017, states "filing application for adjudication of claim". Date of service 9/21/2017, states "filing Petition for Penalty P/LC Sec 132(a)" for 1 hour. Date of service 9/19/2017, is described as "discussion w/ applicant" for 1 hour. Date of service 9/22/2017 states "3 letters to applicant". On 11/21/2017, the activity is described as "subpoena for