LEWIS-WALUNGA v. Municipality of Anchorage
249 P.3d 1063
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Lewis-Walunga, injured in 2004 while employed by the Municipality of Anchorage, had an attorney enter an appearance before the Board.
- The Board later awarded and paid some fees but reduced the requested attorney’s fees by 30% as excessive relative to benefits awarded.
- The Board held a second hearing on fees and awarded $27,244, down from $38,920.
- Lewis-Walunga appealed the Board’s fee decision to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission.
- The Commission vacated the Board’s order, remanded for further findings, and denied fees on appeal, prompting this superior court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is a 'successful party' on appeal under AS 23.30.008(d)? | Lewis-Walunga prevails on a significant issue by obtaining remand/instructions, making her a successful party. | Municipality contends Lewis-Walunga was not successful because the relief sought was not granted on appeal. | A claimant is a successful party if she prevails on a significant issue on appeal. |
| Did the Commission err in denying fees on appeal based on its factual finding about the relief sought? | Commission erred in equating remand with lack of success and in relying on a narrow interpretation of the requested relief. | Remand without explicit full-fee relief means not a successful appeal; findings supported denial. | Yes; the denial rested on insufficient substantial evidence and misapprehended the relief Lewis-Walunga sought. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise Mech. Contractors v. Bignell, 718 P.2d 971 (Alaska 1986) (policy basis for fully compensatory and reasonable fees)
- L.D.G., Inc. v. Brown, 211 P.3d 1110 (Alaska 2009) (interpretation of fee-shifting statutes and appellate-like context)
- Shehata v. Salvation Army, 225 P.3d 1106 (Alaska 2010) (forums for attorney’s fees on appeal; prevailing on significant issues)