Home/Case Law/CARMEN HENNIGAR vs. DER WIENERSCHNITZEL, ILLINOIS MIDWEST SPRINGFIELD, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE LAS VEGAS
Regular DecisionReconsideration

CARMEN HENNIGAR vs. DER WIENERSCHNITZEL, ILLINOIS MIDWEST SPRINGFIELD, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE LAS VEGAS

Filed: Jan 27, 2014
Santa Ana
ADJ8391101

CompFox AI Summary

In Hennigar v. Der Wienerschnitzel, the applicant's attorneys sought reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release, specifically challenging the reduced 12% attorney fee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the primary issue was the petitioner's failure to comply with Appeals Board Rule 10778. This rule requires attorneys seeking increased fees to provide proof of service to the applicant, notifying them of the attorney's adverse interest and their right to independent counsel. As this procedural requirement was not met, the Board upheld the lower fee.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

In Hennigar v. Der Wienerschnitzel, the applicant's attorneys sought reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release, specifically challenging the reduced 12% attorney fee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the primary issue was the petitioner's failure to comply with Appeals Board Rule 10778. This rule requires attorneys seeking increased fees to provide proof of service to the applicant, notifying them of the attorney's adverse interest and their right to independent counsel. As this procedural requirement was not met, the Board upheld the lower fee.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.