Finnegan

Finnegan v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Good Law
69 F.3d 1039·95 Daily Journal DAR 15101·1995 WL 672656·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 31930·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8709
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 14, 1995No. 94-70301California1,220 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nelson, J.

Claimant Michael Finnegan petitions this court for review of a decision by the Benefits Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. Finnegan maintains that the Board reduced the hourly rate to be paid to the attorneys representing him in his disability claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harborworker’s Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., without adequately justifying the reduction. We hold that we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and we affirm.

I. APPEALABILITY OF THE BOARD’S ORDER

In Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-47 , 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26 , 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), the Supreme Court held that a limited number of non-final orders might be appealable if they “finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” 337 U.S. at 546 , 69 S.Ct. at 1225-26 . Cargill concedes that the fee order in this matter satisfies the first two requirements: it conclusively determines the question of whether fees are…

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.