Verdene Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 316 P.3d 671

This is a long-running Idaho workers’ compensation case focused on attorney fees.
Claimant’s counsel, Berry, sought 40% contingent-fee recovery; the Commission awarded 30% under I.C. § 72-804.
A September 2009 order and a 2009 stipulation fixed 30% as the fee; Berry later pursued higher percentages.
Berry’s calculation attempted to treat attorney fees as part of benefits, which the Commission rejected.
The Commission repeatedly denied increasing the fee and ultimately affirmed a 30% award on appeal.
Berry also sought fees under I.C. § 72-803 and on appeal, which the court ultimately addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 30% under §72-804 is supported by substantial evidence	Berry argues 40% is warranted by the fee agreement and Hogaboom factors	McCain/McCain Foods contends 30% plus stipulation governs; 40% not reasonable	Yes; 30% supported by Hogaboom and substantial evidence
Whether Berry is entitled to a 40% fee despite the stipulation	Berry maintains the fee agreement entitles 40% after appeal	Defendants rely on the stipulation and regulation preferring 30%	No; 30% approved; 40% not awarded
Whether Berry could recover §72-803 fees for the same work	Berry claims additional fees under §72-803 for work done	The record shows §72-804 work; no preexisting basis for double recovery	No; §72-804 exclusive; cannot double-recover for same work under §72-803
Whether Berry is entitled to attorney fees on appeal	Berry seeks fees on appeal under Private Attorney General Doctrine/§12-117	Curr controls; no attorney-fees on appeal in workers’ comp	Not entitled to fees on appeal
Constitutional challenges to attorney-fee regulation lack merit	Berry argues due process/equal protection violations	Regulation has been upheld; no due process violation here	Without merit

Bradley v. Washington Group Intl., 141 Idaho 655 (2005) (Hogaboom factors and fee discretion support 30% under 72-804)
Hogaboom v. Economy Mattress, 107 Idaho 13 (1984) (contingent-fee evidence weighed with Hogaboom factors for §72-804)
Clark v. Sage, 102 Idaho 261 (1981) (factors for reasonable attorney fees in successors to Hogaboom)
Swett v. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 136 Idaho 74 (2001) (recognizes Hogaboom framework and reasonableness review)
Curr v. Curr, 124 Idaho 686 (1993) (procedural due process; guidelines for attorney-fee reductions)
Rhodes v. Industrial Commission, 125 Idaho 139 (1993) (regulation and due process; supports Commission’s authority to set fee guidelines)
Seiniger Law Offices, P.A. v. State, 154 Idaho 461 (2013) (upholds regulation governing attorney-fee awards; due process inquiry context)
Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., I, 141 Idaho 342 (2005) (Page I; discusses notice and accident issues in the underlying case)
Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., II, 145 Idaho 302 (2008) (Page II; remands issues including attorney-fee awards)