Albe vs. DOWCP, (5th Cir. 1999)
Linked as:
Text
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60060 Summary Calendar WENDALL TAYLOR, Claimant, JOSEPH G. ALBE, Petitioner, VERSUS DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERÂ’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (98-0427) August 10, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joseph Albe seeks review of the amount of attorney§ 901 et seq. (“LHWCA”). Finding no reversible error, we deny th e petiti on for review.
I. Wendall Taylor was injured in a workrelated fall on March 24, 1992 , and filed an administrative claim for benef it s under the LHWCA. While his claim was pending before an a dministrative law judge (§ 905(b) and the Jones Act, 42 U.S.C.
The ALJ also ordered the employer to pay medical expenses. The ALJ awarded Taylor's counsel, Albe, attorneyÂ’s fees o f $32,572.50 for work performed before the ALJ. * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion sho uld not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. Albe then filed a fee petition with the district director, seeking a fee of $43,689.23, repre sent ing 258.75 hours at $150 per hour, plus costs in the amount of $4,871.73, for a total of $43,689.23 . Instead, the district director awarded $23,021. 25, representing 154.475 hours at 150 hours, plus $4,871.73 in costs.
Albe appealed the district director’s award to the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”), claiming that the district director had erred in reduci ng much of his fee as excessive and duplicative. Co nceding that the district director correctly had eliminated fees for 12.8 hours of t he award, Albe nonetheless urged the BRB to restore an award tota ling $38,817.50. The BRB affirmed the district director’s decision, and Albe p et itions for review of the BRB's order.
II. A.
We review a decision of the BRB for errors of law and for substantial evidence supporting it. N ew Thoughts Finishing Co. v. Ch ilton ,
Albe argues t hat all of his depositions and conferences with his client wer e necessary to establ ish entitlement under the LHWCA. He contends that the fact that this preparation also benefited Taylor§ 905(b) litigation does not mean that half o f t he hours should not be credited toward his administrative actions.
A n attorney is generally not entitle d to compensation under the LHWCA for services performed in prosecuting a thir d-party claim.
Kahny v. Arrow Contractors , 15 BRBS 212, 227 (1982), aff§ 905(b) litigation. Therefore, we conclude that the BRBÂ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
The petition for review is DENIED.
Sponsored links
