EUGENE C. BLAND v. MARSHA P. RYAN, Administrator, BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, et al.
Appellate Case No. 24826
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
July 13, 2012
2012-Ohio-3176
Trial Court Case No. 2010-CV-08348 (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
GARY D. PLUNKETT, Atty. Reg. #0006136, and BRETT BISSONNETTE, Atty. Reg. #0076527, Hochman & Plunkett Co., L.P.A. 3077 Kettering Boulevard, Point West, Suite 210, Dayton, Ohio 45439 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant, Eugene C. Bland
LYDIA M. ARKO, Atty. Reg. #0085597, Office of the Attorney General, Workers’ Compensation Section, 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215
CHRISTOPHER AEMISEGGER, Atty. Reg. #0082868, Thomas & Company, L.P.A., 163 North Sandusky Street, Suite 103, Delaware, Ohio 43015 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.
OPINION
Rendered on the 13th day of July, 2012.
HARSHA, J. (Sitting by Assignment)
{¶ 1} Eugene Bland appeals the trial court‘s decision denying her reimbursement for certain expenses following a jury trial that established her right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund. Bland argues the trial court erred by failing to award her certain requested expenses. Her expenses for photocopies, postage, meals and parking are costs traditionally charged to clients and have a direct relation to her appeal. Accordingly, these expenses are reimbursable under
{¶ 2} Accordingly, we remand the case for the trial court to determine whether the amount requested for the allowable expenses was reasonable, i.e. the amount to be reimbursed to Bland for photocopies, postage, meals and parking.
I. FACTS
{¶ 3} After a trial involving Eugene Bland‘s workers’ compensation claim, a jury found that she had the right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund. Bland then filed a “Motion for Order on Plaintiff‘s Application for Award of Attorney‘s Fees and Expenses” requesting, in addition to attorney‘s fees, reimbursement for $5,330.92 in expenses under
{¶ 4} The trial court awarded Bland “reasonable expenses” in the amount of $4,789.80. However, it did not award Bland the $541.12 in contested expenses representing “photocopies, postage, fax, packaging, mileage, meals and parking” because it found that these fees were “every day costs of doing business in today‘s practice of law * * * [and] d[id] not bear directly on [Bland‘s] workers compensation appeal.” As a result, Bland filed this appeal disputing the trial court‘s denial for reimbursement of the contested $541.12 in expenses.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 5} Bland presents a sole assignment of error for our review:
{¶ 6} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO AWARD CERTAIN EXPENSES REPRESENTING ‘PHOTOCOPIES, POSTAGE, FAX, PACKAGING, MILEAGE, MEALS AND PARKING’ FOLLOWING A SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF PLANTIFF‘S APPEAL OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIM UNDER
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 7} The decision to grant or deny fees and costs under
B. Legal Standard
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} Thus,
{¶ 10} The Supreme Court of Ohio has interpreted the phrase “cost of any legal proceedings” broadly and recognized that “the purpose of allowing reimbursement under
{¶ 11} Although expenses for “everyday costs of doing business” are not reimbursable, the Supreme Court of Ohio has stressed that the “cost of legal proceedings” language in
C. Analysis
{¶ 12} Bland contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her reimbursement for $541.12 in litigation expenses under
{¶ 13} AT&T relies in part on our holding in Banfill v. Admr., Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 17294, 1998 WL 879110 (Dec. 18, 1998), to support its assertion that the challenged expenses by Bland are personal expenses or everyday costs of doing business. In Banfill, we found that charges for medical records, photocopies, long distance telephone calls and facsimiles were not reimbursable expenses under
{¶ 14} In essence, our reading of Kilgore, Schuller and Paris reveals a three pronged analysis for deciding reimbursement issues under
{¶ 15} In the present case, the trial court denied Bland reimbursement for $541.12 in expenses it determined represented “photocopies, postage, fax, packaging, mileage, meals and parking.” The court found these expenses were the “every day costs of doing business in today‘s practice of law,” and did not “bear directly on [Bland‘s] workers compensation appeal.” However, this decision is somewhat confusing because the record shows that the court actually granted Bland reimbursement for travel mileage and we cannot find where Bland claimed any expense for packaging. Instead, Bland‘s application and AT&T‘s opposition to the application show the denied $541.12 in expenses represented parking during trial, lunch during trial, postage, photocopies and a “file initiation expense.” Bland did not request an oral hearing on her “Motion for Order on Plaintiff‘s Application for Award of Attorney‘s Fees and Expenses” and consequently the only evidence in the record regarding these expenses is the exhibits attached to her application.
{¶ 16} Initially, we address the file initiation fee. Because there was no evidence other than an accounting entry to support this expense, we are unsure what her requested “file initiation” expense represents; consequently, we are unable to say that this is an expense traditionally charged to clients or directly related to her appeal. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm its judgment, to the extent it concluded Bland cannot recover this expense.
{¶ 17} However, following the standards set forth in by the Supreme Court in Kilgore and our holding in Paris, Bland‘s expenses for photocopies, postage, parking and lunch during trial are costs traditionally charged to clients and have a direct relation to her appeal. We disagree with AT&T that these expenses are the everyday costs of doing business and conclude they are the type of costs that are reimbursable under
{¶ 18} Because the trial court ruled these expenses were overhead and were not directly related to the appeal, it did not
{¶ 19} Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause to determine whether the requested amounts of these expenses were reasonable, i.e. the amount to be reimbursed to Bland for photocopies, postage, meals and parking.
GRADY, P.J., and FROELICH, J., concur.
(Hon. William H. Harsha, Fourth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
Copies mailed to:
Gary D. Plunkett
Brett Bissonnette
Lydia M. Arko
Christopher Aemisegger
Hon. John D. Schmitt (sitting for Hon. Dennis J. Langer)