Spaniol's Case
81 Mass. App. Ct. 437
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- AIM sought to use the § 13A(10) payment-reduction provision to reduce benefits owed to an employee’s attorney.
- The employee and AIM settled on November 19, 2007, at DIA with a written settlement reflecting G. L. c. 152, § 36 awards and attorney fees.
- Settlement totals: § 36 compensation $7,602.77; attorney fee $2,500; other costs; all negotiated figures.
- AIM reduced the employee’s payment by 22% under § 13A(10), paying $5,930.16 instead of $7,602.77.
- The employee sought relief; an administrative judge ordered reimbursement, but the DIA Reviewing Board reversed, prompting review.
- Issue: whether AIM’s settlement qualifies for § 13A(10) reduction given the settlement terms and statutory requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 13A(10) applies to the settlement payment. | AIM relies on § 13A(10) to reduce the employee’s award. | Settlement terms and conditions do not satisfy all § 13A(10) requirements. | Not eligible; four conditions of § 13A(10) not satisfied. |
| Whether the settlement falls within the § 13A(5) fee framework. | Settlement fee could be within the statutory § 13A(5) scheme due to timing. | Settlement negotiated fees cannot be fixed by § 13A(5) when no hearing occurred and terms were compromised. | § 13A(5) not satisfied; settlement fee not governed by § 13A(5). |
Key Cases Cited
- Daly’s Case, 405 Mass. 33 (Mass. 1989) (establishes appellate attorney’s fees framework under § 12A)
- Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9 (Mass. 2004) (procedural entitlement to fees on appeal under § 13A(5))
- Richards’s Case, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 701 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (plainly interprets § 13A(5) fee triggers)
- Green’s Case, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 141 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (fee structure linked to stages of resolution)
- Vazquez’s Case, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (unpublished memoranda cited under Rule 1:28)