Dyer

Dyer v. Owcp

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 1, 200907-73549California3,239 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On May 3, 2005, Dyer filed a claim for hearing loss under the LHWCA against Cenex and its workers’ compensation 5112 DYER v. CENEX HARVEST STATES insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. See 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(13). On June 23, 2005, Cenex received notice of Dyer’s claim. On June 30, 2005, Cenex contested — or “controverted” — liability and refused to pay. On June 27, 2006, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Dyer was awarded a settlement of $33,497.57. The set- tlement provided that Dyer’s attorney was entitled to reason- able attorney’s fees and costs under the LHWCA. An Administrative Law Judge from the Office of Workers’ Com- pensation Programs (“OWCP”) approved the agreement.

On July 26, 2006, Dyer’s attorney submitted an application for attorney’s fees to the OWCP. He sought fees from January 31, 2005, when he first began representing Dyer, through July 10, 2006, the date of the fee request. Cenex objected to paying attorney’s fees incurred prior to June 30, 2005, the date of controversion. The OWCP’s District Director ruled in favor of Cenex. The BRB affirmed in an unpublished order,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.