P. Righter v. WCAB (Righter Parking), 141 A.3d 628

Patricia Righter filed a workers’ compensation Claim Petition for injuries sustained on April 13, 2012; employer initially contested liability and parties litigated indemnity, medical benefits, penalties, and unreasonable-contest fees.
Claimant and her attorney had a contingent-fee agreement providing counsel 20% of "all compensation payable" to Claimant while she receives workers’ compensation benefits; the agreement did not expressly mention medical-provider payments.
The parties entered two stipulations resolving most issues and confirming counsel’s 20% fee on indemnity past-due wages; they reserved for litigation only whether counsel is entitled to 20% of medical bill payments.
At hearing the WCJ found the agreement ambiguous as to medical payments, found counsel had not shown specific work that advanced payment of medical bills, and found no separate fee agreement with medical providers.
WCJ denied counsel’s claim to 20% of medical bill payments as unreasonable; the Board affirmed and the Commonwealth Court likewise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel is entitled to 20% of medical bill payments in addition to 20% of indemnity benefits	Righter: the 20% contingent fee is per se reasonable and should apply to all benefits (including medical) and counsel performed extensive work justifying the fee	Employer: the agreement does not clearly promise a fee on medical payments and counsel did not show specific work advancing payment of medical bills	Court: Fee on medical payments not approved — agreement ambiguous as to medical payments and counsel failed to show that time/effort specifically advanced payment of medical bills, so 20% of medical payments is unreasonable

Weidner v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 442 A.2d 242 (Pa. 1982) (Section 442 protects claimants from improvident attorney-fee agreements)
Piergalski v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 621 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (20% fee is per se reasonable for indemnity but medical-fee reasonableness requires separate inquiry)
Raulston v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 606 A.2d 668 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (remand for findings on claimant’s intent and fee reasonableness regarding medical payments)
Wommer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 479 A.2d 661 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (reasonableness inquiry should consider amount and difficulty of attorney’s work)
Hendricks v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 909 A.2d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (scope of appellate review in workers’ compensation cases)
Koszowski v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 595 A.2d 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (concern that claimants should be informed of potential conflict when counsel seeks medical-fee recovery)