S. Kry-Puy v. WCAB (C&A Labor, Inc.), 2525 C.D. 2015

Claimant Samedy Kry-Puy filed a workers’ compensation claim for right forearm/hand/finger injuries sustained at work on Nov. 20, 2012; Employer initially denied, then issued a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) on Aug. 16, 2013.
Claimant alleged Employer unreasonably contested the claim from filing (Mar. 14, 2013) until the NCP (Aug. 16, 2013).
Claimant’s counsel sought a 20% attorney fee of both indemnity benefits and medical bill payments ($234,902 in medical bills).
WCJ found Employer’s contest was unreasonable only for the period Mar. 14–Aug. 15, 2013; awarded 20% of indemnity benefits for that period but denied 20% of medical benefits as unreasonable based on limited attorney time (≈1.5 hours) and average difficulty.
The Board affirmed; claimant’s counsel appealed to this Court, arguing she was automatically entitled to 20% of medical benefits and/or a larger fee. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board and WCJ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel is entitled to 20% of medical benefits as part of an unreasonable-contest fee under §440	Counsel: 20% of medical benefits is appropriate (relying on precedent)	Employer/WCJ: 20% of medical benefits would be unreasonable given limited work and partial contest	Held: Fee may include medical benefits only if reasonable; here 20% of medical bills was unreasonable and denied
Whether the contingency fee agreement’s 20% charge on medical bill payments must be approved under §442	Counsel: Contingency agreement should be approved in full (including 20% of medical)	WCJ/Board: §442 requires separate reasonableness analysis for medical fees; approval can be limited	Held: WCJ properly approved 20% of indemnity (per se reasonable) but declined 20% of medical benefits after quantum meruit analysis
Whether WCJ abused discretion in relying on documented attorney time and difficulty to deny 20% of medical fees	Counsel: Should receive higher fee based on work performed	WCJ/Board: Counsel documented ~1.5 hours of standard/average work; $46,980.40 for minimal work is unreasonable	Held: No abuse of discretion; record supports WCJ’s findings and denial of medical-fee portion

Koszowski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 595 A.2d 697 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (discussing contingent fees and medical-bill percentage awards)
Raulston v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 606 A.2d 668 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (addressing contingent fee awards including medical expenses)
Wommer v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 479 A.2d 661 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (holding percentage-of-compensation fees including medical expenses may be appropriate but must be reasonable)
Piergalski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 621 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (clarifying that 20% of indemnity is per se reasonable but medical-fee percentage requires separate inquiry)
Elite Carpentry Contractors v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 636 A.2d 250 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deference to WCJ when fee is reasonably related to amount and difficulty of work)
Righter v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 141 A.3d 628 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (recently articulating that WCJ must assess intent and reasonableness for medical-fee percentages and perform a quantum meruit analysis)