Timothy Koback v. Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island
19-423
| R.I. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- Petitioner Timothy Koback, a Woonsocket firefighter, suffered a back injury in 2012 and applied for accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits in 2013.
- The Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (MERS) denied ADR and approved ordinary disability retirement; Koback appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC) under G.L. 1956 § 45-21.2-9.
- After a de novo trial in the WCC, the trial judge awarded ADR benefits and granted attorney’s fees and costs (trial judge set fee at $12,000).
- The Appellate Division of the WCC affirmed jurisdiction and the fee award, and added $2,500 for appellate work; MERS challenged only the fee award to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held that § 45-21.2-9 does not expressly authorize the WCC to award attorneys’ fees or costs in ADR appeals and quashed the Appellate Division’s decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the WCC may award attorneys’ fees/costs in ADR appeals under § 45-21.2-9 | Koback: ADR appeals are "proceedings" under the WCA; § 28-35-20 references attorneys’ fees, so WCC may award fees | MERS: § 45-21.2-9 contains no express fee authorization; WCC cannot imply fee power from procedural incorporation | Held: § 45-21.2-9 does not expressly authorize fees; WCC acted in excess of authority; fee award quashed |
| Whether § 28-35-32 (WCA fee statute) applies to ADR appeals | Koback: ADR appeals fall within the WCA categories (employee petitions) that trigger § 28-35-32 fees | MERS: § 28-35-32’s categories do not encompass ADR appeals absent explicit statutory language | Held: Incorporation of WCA procedures does not create independent fee authority; fees unavailable without explicit statute |
| Whether petitioner presented legally sufficient evidence to support the fee award | Koback: Submitted fee affidavits and supplemental affidavit documenting hours and difficulty; fee reasonable | MERS: Affidavits were not formally introduced and are therefore insufficient under precedent | Held: Supreme Court did not reach merits of fee sufficiency because it resolved the case on lack of statutory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Lang v. Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, 222 A.3d 912 (R.I. 2019) (WCC has subject-matter jurisdiction over ADR appeals; broad incorporation of WCA procedures)
- Tri-Town Constr. Co. v. Commerce Park Assocs. 12, LLC, 139 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2016) (reiterating American Rule: fees require statutory or contractual authorization)
- Shine v. Moreau, 119 A.3d 1 (R.I. 2015) (when a statute is silent on attorneys’ fees, courts may not imply fee awards)
- Eleazer v. Ted Reed Thermal, Inc., 576 A.2d 1217 (R.I. 1990) (attorney’s fees unavailable at common law; must rest on statute or contract)
- Rivera v. Employees’ Retirement Sys. of Rhode Island, 70 A.3d 905 (R.I. 2013) (court cannot add statutory language by implication)
- Matter of Falstaff Brewing Corp. Re: Narragansett Brewery Fire, 637 A.2d 1047 (R.I. 1994) (statutory construction should align with legislative purpose and avoid absurd results)