The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-06080 ,'r. ~ . CATHY WAMSLEY, by MICHAEL A. KORANDA, her attorney, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. J.O:JO~ (PO~O o'vd RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR JUDGMENT FOR DEFAULT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 428 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to Section 428 of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, 77 P.S. 921, kindly enter judgment in favor of Michael A. Koranda, Esquire, and against Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation in the amount of $13,000.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a certified copy ofthe Decision of Workers' Compensation Judge Charles Clark dated November 10, 1999, directing Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation, to pay the sum of$13,000.00 to Plaintiffs attorney, Michael A. Koranda, Esquire. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a certified copy of the Opinion and Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board dated June 27, 2000, dismissing an appeal filed to the aforesaid Decision. Respectfully submitted, TOMASKO & KORANDA, P.C. 219 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 238-1100 By: ~~d MICHAEL A. KORANDA PA ID #58808 -,,,,,'~ ,~ ~ ~. , . .:-,l." . I!i~ ' ...,. ~~ ~_~-kcl<,\'-"" lReceived Bwe 1999-11-24 I ....TK-UU:!i.K.l!;V UVUl/!llI [ . , I l' Circulation Date: 111l0f1999 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSlRY . BUREAUOFWORKERS'COMPBNSATlON 717-783-4419 CHARLES CLARK HARRISBURG JUDGES OFFICE EAST GATE CENTER 1010 NORTH SEVENTH STREET HARRISBURG PA 17102-1400 DECISION RENDERED COVER LETTER Bureau Claim Number: 641493 Insurer Claim Number: SIICial Security Number: 190-52-3942 Pl!titions: Pet-To Review Compensation Benefits CAlHYWAMSLEY 717 NEWPORT ROAD DUNCANNON, PA 17020 MICHAEL KORANDA, ESQUIRE TOMASKO & KORANDA P.C. 219 STATE STREET HARRISBURG,PA 17101 JASON WEINSToCK, ESQUIRE mAR. WEINSTOCK,P.C. 800 N. SECOND STREET SUITE 100 HARRISBURG,PA 17102 Judge: Charles CIarlc East Gate Center 1010 North Seventh Street Ramsburg, P A 17102-1400 The attached Decision oflhe Judge is final unless an appeal is taken to lhe Workers' Compensation Appeal Board as provided bylaw. Vs If you do not agree with this Decision, an appeal must be filed with the Worlcers' Compensation Appeal Board within 20 days of the date of this notice. lUTE AID CORPORATION POBOX3165 HARRISBURG, PA 17105 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL AD] CO PO BOX 499 ESSINGTON, PA 19029-0499 ClIARLES MCELWEE, ESQUIRE POST & SCHELL, P.C. 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMPHIlL,PA 17011 GAB ROBINS NO AM INC PO BOX 734 CAMPHIlL,PA 17011 Fonns for an appeal may be obtained from lhe Worlcers' Compensation Appeal Board, Capital Associates Building 901 North Seventh S1reet Third Floor South Hanisburg,PA 17102 ./ I ~ OPEN o CLOSED D SUSPENDED o illlKNOWNTO WCJ EXHIBIT ~ j A ,~"";, "'-"" ~M~-' - ~' .~- ""~ Received BWC 1999-11-24 Enw10vee WitnMIM & ll'C'hihitQ: None EmDloyer Witnes.... & Exhibits: None Emnlovea COlIMeJ WitnllJllel & Exhibits: Cathy Wamsley C-l Fee AgIeement with ItaH. Weinstock,P.c. C-2 Fee Agreement wilhMichael Koranda, Esq. C-3 ItP.m;7.llf1oo of Time - Weinstock C-4 Letter Dated 1/3/97 - Weinstock c-s Itemization of Time -K.oranda HeRrin.: 10/22197 00:00:00 Held ... "lIEEl:i<.. -"'" CATHY WAMSLEY - 641493 - _.-~..-",,~ ......._ ...._. "~",hN"' -'.' ~ I :~ -'" . -....;-,~'~~ ,,":, Received ewe 1999-11 -24 31 CATHY WAMSLEY Bureau Claim #641493 Remand-Counsel Fee Page 1 of9 RECORD: On or about June 11, 1997, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board remanded to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the petition for approval of attorney fees filed by Tomasko and Koranda, P.C., hereinafter called the Koranda Firm. On July 8, 1997, the petition was assigned to the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge. Hearings were scheduled and or held as listed above. Both parties were presented the opportunity to appear at the hearings and present testimony, exhibits, and argument. Both parties have been afforded an opportunity to submit proposed findings offact and conclusions of law and/or a brief. This matter is now ripe for decision. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Pending before this Workers' Compensation Judge is a petition for approval of counsel fees filed by the Koranda Firm with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. Former counsel, Ira H. Weinstock:, P.C. opposed the petition. The Board remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Judge for further proceedings. 2. In its remand order dated June 11, 1997, the Board stated.: "",the proper forum is workers' compensation. Review of the limited information presented to this Board reveals that it is unclear as to when and whether the Weinstock Firm presented a fee agreement for approval in any particular pending litigation, when claimant changed attorneys, what are the exact dates of representation for each firm, whether a quantum meruit is appropriate, and other various factors that must be considered for a proper analysis before approving an attorney fee... As such, J :",.-.." ~~ -~~ .. ~"" "-"" - '" ~,~, , ."", '~', .. ~~'~m""-v,, Received awe 1999-11-24 41 I Cathy Wamsley Page 2 of9 this Board is compelled to remand the instant fee petition ... to a Workers' Compensation Judge so that findings offact and conclusions oflaw can be made on any issues necessary to properly adjudicate, approve and apportion the attorney fees where appropriate." 3. On May 13, 1990, the claimant, Cathy Wamsley, suffered a work-related injury and began receiving benefits of$216.61 per week based upon an average weekly wage of $324.90 per week. 4. On October 21, 1991, the clllimant signed a power of attorney with Ira H. Weinstock, P .C., hereinafter called the "Weinstock Firm." In a decision circulated on March 28, 1995, this Workers' Compensation Judge approved the power of attorney and directed the defendant to pay the Weinstock Firm 20% of claimant's workers' compensation benefits. 5. On December 30, 1996, the claimant signed a notice of termination to start discharging Ira H. Weinstock, P .C. On that same date, the claimant signed a power of attorney and a 20% contingent fee agreement with Michael A. Koranda, Esquire, hereinafter the "Koranda Firm." 6. On or aboutJanuary 6, 1997, the Koranda Firm filed a petition for approval of attorney fees with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board pursuant to Section 442 and 501 of the Act. Oral argument on the petition was held on March 27, 1997 in Harrisburg at which time former counsel appeared and objected to the petition. 7. On or about March 28, 1997, the Koranda Firm filed a petition to escrow attorney fees. 8. In an order dated June 5, 1997, the Board granted the Koranda Firm's petition to escrow attorney fees and as indicated above, remanded the petition for approval of attorney fees to this Workers' Compensation Judge. ~ - . ~ ~ ,." .' ..~ ~>, "~I:iI!Iii,~, Received BWC 1999-11-24 51 Cathy Wamsley Page 3 of9 9. A hearing was held on October 22, 1997 at which time the claimant, Cathy Wamsley, appeared and testified as follows: a. The claimant testified that she suffered a work-related injury on May 13, 1990. b. On October 21, 1991, the clAlmant signed a power of attorney and a 20% fee agreementwith the Weinstock Firm. (See Claimant's ExhibitNo. C-l.) c. The contingent fee agreement was approved by this Judge in a decision circulated on March 28, 1995. d. While represented by the Weinstock Firm, the c]~imant's case was hAndled almost exclusively by Michael A. Koranda, Esquire, who was an associate at the Weinstock Firm. Another attorney at the Weinstock Firm originally handled the clAlmant's case. The case was subsequently reassigned to Mr. Koranda. e. In Late December of 1996, the claimant telephoned the Weinstock Firm and requested to speak: with Mr. Koranda. The claimant advised Mr. Weinstock that she wished to be represented by Mr. Koranda and asked whether Mr. Weinstock could put her in touch with Mr. Koranda, who she was told no longer was associated with the Weinstock Firm. f. Shortly thereafter, the claimant received a written announcement from Mr. Koranda indicating that Mr. Koranda had left the Weinstock Firm and had opened his own firm. The announcement contained Mr. Koranda's address and telephone number. Subsequently, the clAlmAnt telephoned Mr; Koranda and requested that Mr. Koranda represent her in her ongoing workers' compensation case. - "~.... ~ .~, ~."' . ....."'illt$, Received BWC 1999-11-24 Cathy Wamsley Page 4 of9 g. On December 30, 1996, the c1aimlmt appeared at Mr. Koranda's office and signed a notice terminating the Weinstock Firm. On the same date, the claimant signed a power of attorney and contingent fee agreement with Mr. Koranda's firm. (See Claimant's Exhibit C-2) Specifically, the agreement provided Mr. Koranda would receive 20% of the clllimant's workers' compensation benefits. h. The claimant testified that her decision to discharge the Weinstock Firm was a free and voluntary decision made without pressure of any kind. The claimant testified that she was promised nothing other than. the benefits provided for in the Act. The claimant stated that she wanted to remain with Mr. Koranda because she was satisfied with his representation of her in previous litigation. 1. On January 6, 1997, the Koranda Firm filed a petition for approval of attorney fees with the Board pursuant to Sections 442 and 501 of the Act. j. Both parties were given the opportunity to present argument before the Board. In a subsequent order dated June 11, 1997, the Board remanded the petition for approval of attorney fees to this Workers' Compensation Judge "so that findings of fact and conclusions of law can be made on any issue necessary to properly adjudicate, approve and apportion the attorney fees between former and present counsel where appropriate. k. The Weinstock Firm continued to receive 20% of the claimant's benefits even after its discharge on December 30, 1996. 1. The c111imant's counsel alleges that the Weinstock Firm received a total of$519.84 between the period of December 30, 1996 until supersedeas was granted on March 26, 1997. The claimant testified at the hearing she did not authorize the Weinstock Firm to receive attorney fees after its discharge, but instead, desired Mr. Koranda to receive the attorney fees. ^:.:..._~..- . ~~.~ ~ ' ~~ ., ~ "-~~" b.~""fM(', Received BWe 1999-11-24 Cathy Wamsley Page 5 of9 m. On or about July 2, 1997, the claimant agreed to settle her workers' compensation ongoing compensation case for $65,000.00 pursuant to a compromise-release agreement. As part of this agreement, the claimant agreed to pay Mr. Koranda 20% of the settlement moneys or $13,000.00 for attorney fees. n. The Weinstock Firm played no role whatsoever in the negotiation of the compromise-release s~ement. This Judge relies on the claimant's testimony for this finding of fact. o. Mr. Koranda was responsible for negotiating the settlement of this matter on claimant's behalf. p. On August 6, 1997, this Judge approved the compromise-release settlement and issued an order directing the defendant to escrow the sum of$13,OOO.OO pending resolution of the dispute between the present and former counsel. q. The Weinstock Firm presented documentation that it received $10,634.54 of the claimant's benefits during the period of October 21, 1991 until March 27, 1997 when supersedeas was granted in this case. r. The claimant testified that she does not want the Weinstock Firm to collect any additional attorney fees from her workers' compensation. case. Instead, the claimant desires all remaining attorney fees including the $13,000.00 held in escrow to go to Mr. Koranda. s. This Judge finds the testimony of Cathy Wamsley at all times competent, credible and worthy of belief in its entirety. 10. Under Pennsylvania law, the client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship with or without cause regardless of any contractual agreement between the two parties. This Judge relies on Richette v. Solomon. 410 Pa.6, 187, A.2d 910 andPittv. WCAB (l\AcEachin). 636 A.2d235, 237, Pa. .~. . ~ .' . ." 'or ilIli~.r; Received BWC 1999-11-24 Cathy Wamsley Page 6 of9 Cwlth. Ct. (1993). This case holds that a client always has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time with or without cause. Like other contracts for legal services, "contingent fee agreements are terminable by the client." 11. In determining the method of compensating attorneys who are terminated by the client in a contingent fee case, Pennsylvania Courts look to the roles set forth in Sundheim v. Beaver County Buildinl!: and Loan Association. 140 Pa. Super, 529, 14 A.2d 349, (1940). "A client may terminate his relationship with an attorney at any time, notwithstanding a contract for fees, but ifhe does so, thus making the performance of a contract impossible, the attorney is not deprived of his right to recover on a quantum meruit a proper amount for the services which he has rendered." See also, Dorset v. Hughes. 353 Pa. Super. 129, 133-34, 509 A2d, 369, 371 (1986). This case holds that a client may terminate his contingent fee agreement with an attorney at any time, but ifhe does so, the discharged attorney has a claim in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered prior to the termination. 12. The Koranda Firm asserts that the c]~imant has an absolute right to change representation of counsel. Other than notifying the claimant of his change of employment status with the Weinstock Firm, the Koranda Firm denies any solicitation of claimant. 13. The Weinstock Firm, inter alia, argues that the claimant had executed a contingent fee agreement for Weinstock's services as a result of which the claimant had benefited by obtaining a successful result. Therefore, Weinstock argues that it is entitled to an ongoing percentage fee of present and future benefits. 14. This Judge finds as a fact that Koranda's argument has merit, especially pertaining to the fact that this Workers' Compensation Judge granted supersedeas .". - . ~~ ~ llillilikil ~~ . 0<." ~rc ReGeived ewe 1999-11-24 ~ Cathy Wamsley Page 7 of9 in this case. The claimant was not receiving any wage loss benefits because of this supersedeas. Supersedeas was entered on March 27, 1997. Therefore, this Judge finds as a fact, that at the time of claimant's settlement of this matter, there was nothing due to the Weinstock Firm under the. terms of his fee agreement with the claimant. This Judge is satisfied that Mr. Weinstock played no role whatsoever in the negotiation of the settlement of the compromise-release settlement and that this compromise-release settlement was negotiated exclusively through the efforts of the claimant and the defendant. 15. This Judge finds as a fact that as of March 27, 1997, it does not appear that a contingency as to the claiml'lTlt's receipt of future benefits was presented by the issues in this case. 16. This Judge finds that the Koranda Firm did not interfere with the contractual relationship existing between the claimant and the Weinstock Firm. as it related to future benefits in this case. 17. According to the records in this case, it appears that the Weinstock Firm. has received $10,634.54 of the claimant's benefits between the period of October 21, 1991 through March 27, 1997 when supersedeas was granted. These moneys were received pursuant to the power of attorney signed by the clahllllTlt. 18. This Workers' Compensation Judge finds as a fact that there was no real element of a contingency to be litigated or determined in the circumstances of the fee agreement entered into between the Weinstock Firm. and the claimant after March 27, 1997. 19. This Judge notes that the claimant was receiving compensation benefits before she approached the Weinstock Firm for representation and when the Weinstock Firm. did obtain a successful result, a supersedeas was granted in this matter. .~ 4'""V" ,'~ ,J l. " 'l!;;l; ReGeived ewe 1999-11-24 1 Cathy Wamsley Page 8 of9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. In all matters material to this petition, the parties are bound by the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, as amended. 2. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board has already determined the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Judge to entertain the issues presented by the pending petition for approval of counsel fees and petition to escrow counsel fees. 3. It is well established that a Workers' Compensation Judge may review and shall approve counsel fees consistent with the terms and policies of the Act. 4. Herein, this Workers' Compensation Judge notes that a 20% fee agreement is deemed reasonable under case law. S. This Judge concludes that the claimant has an absolute right to discharge the Weinstock Firm and retain the Koranda Firm for representation in the above matter. The clllimant's decision to discharge the Weinstock Firm and return. the Koranda Firm was freely and voluntarily made. 6. This Judge concludes that the Weinstock Firm has been adequately compensated for all services provided to the claimant prior to its discharge. Therefore, the Weinstock Firm is not entitled to any portion of the attorney fees resulting from the claimant's compromise-release settlement and is not entitled to any quantum meruit reimbursement from the moneys held in escrow. 7. The 20% fee agreement submitted by Mr. Koranda is per se reasonable under Section 442 of the Act and the same is approved. 8. The defendant shall remit payment of $13,000.00 held in escrow directly to Mr. Koranda as payment of attorney fees from the compromise-release settlement. ~- "~ ~. ." ~ . '"" ~ . ~-' , ~J< - "~"'f'_~",,~, Received ~WC 1999-'11-24 Cathy Wamsley Page 9 of9 9. This Judge concludes that the Weinstock Finn shall reimburse the claimant for all fees collected from the time of its discharge on December 30, 1996, until supersedeas was granted on March 27, 1997. ORDER: AND NOW, to wit, on this 10th day of November, 1999, it is hereby ordered and directed that: 1. Claimant's fee agreement with the Koranda Firm is hereby approved. 2. Effective with the circulation of this order, the defendant shall deduct and pay the escrowed amount of $13,000.00 to the Law Firm of Tomasko and Koranda, P.C. 3. In light of the foregoing conclusions, the Weinstock Firm has been overpaid from the period of the discharge signed by the claimant, December 30, 1996 through March 17, 1997, and mustrem.it fee payments received from the defendant from December 30,1996 to March 1,1997, the effective date of the supersedeas decision. The amount of overpayment for this period shall be paid to claimant. 4. No counsel fees, litigation costs, interest or penalties are awarded to any participant in this pending litigation other than those set forth above. Charles F. Clark Workers' Compensation Judge CFC/bem November 10, 1999 ,,,...",,,,,,,,,' ""f~''',-,'p.~i. ~,,,~,,,",,~,,~,""'rlj'" "'~"'*'" , 'ill!-~--'',-.l ,,~," "t',M<f>'!;' ""-'+""!"h." !t'.." ,"<, , "l" '''~'"''W';~' "',l",:'""'" "" '~'i-w'~"~"I.,,.,,",h"\i" ":k~W~",,,R"H~',\~., " ";",,,',,"-'.," " L1BC-475 REV 11.92. '* COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPAR1'MENT O;F LABOR AND INDUSfRY IIUlIEAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION IlAIUUSBURG, PA 17104-2501 August 31, 2000 The foregoing is hereby certified to be a true and correct copy of Judge Charles Clark's Decision Circulated November 10, 1999 in the case of Cathy Wamsley v. Rite Aid Corporation, S.S. #190-52-3942, D/l 5/13/90 as full, entire, and complete as the same remains on file in the Bureau of Workers' Compensation of the Department of Labor and Industry. Certified this . 31st day of August D 2000 ~4/A,cfft~.t Chief Records Management Division ATI'EST: I hereby certify that Laura S. Keller , who signed the foregoing, was at the time of signing, Chief, Records Management Division, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, and as such, was the legal custodian of the above-described records. ,\ " ,- ," ~,r" IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Department of Labor and Industry to be affixed on this 31st day of August , W 20<)0 .,' Seal of the Department of Labor and Industry ~~.~~ Sandra . Neal '!.!;>),,~J~ ~-~- ~~ ~ . u,,l,.,;.., .. "-"'- ~:iI:!lI'~', COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD HARRISBURG ~!:.-('=f"=~'" "'-Vl.- ,,~U 00 JUN28 A/1 8: 29 . :','" '~ -. " -'~ '. i::.. -,I,":' ,. A99-3624 CATHY WAMSLEY 717 NEWPORT ROAD DUNCANNON, PA 17020 APPEAL BY IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. FROM ORDER OF VB. WC JUDGE CLARK RITE AID CORPORATION PO BOX 3165 HARRISBURG, PA 17105 S.S. # 190-52-3942 HARRISBURG/JANUARY, 2000 DISMISSED A.I.G. CLAIM SERVICES, INC. P.O. BOX 499 ESSINGTON, PA 19029 INSURANCE CARRIER JASON M. WEINSTOCK, ESQ. 800 N. SECOND STREET SUITE 100 HARRISBURG, PA 17102 CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL CHARLES F. MCELWEE, ESQUIRE 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE SUITE 100 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL EXHIBIT b I ----.B ,,''''''~-..''"''~"- f-- """" 'i...{ OPINION McDERMOTT, CHAIRMAN: Ira H. Weinstock, P.C., appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) from the Decision and Order of Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) Charles F. Clark, circulated on November 10, 1999, approving Claimant's Petition for Approval of Counsel Fees (Fee Petition). We dismiss the Appeal for the reasons stated below. On May 13, 1990, Cathy Wamsley (Claimant) sustained a work-related injury while in the course and scope of her employment with Rite Aid Corporation (Defendant). Claimant began to receive compensation benefits of $216.61 per week. On October 21, 1991, Claimant signed a Power of Attorney with Ira I-I. Weinstock, P.C. (Weinstock Finn). In a Decision circulated on March 28, 1995, the WCJ approved the power of attorney and directed Defendant to pay the Weinstock Firm twenty percent (20%) of Claimant's workers' compensation benefits. On December 30, 1996, Claimant signed a Notice of Termination, discharging the Weinstock Firm, and on that same date signed a Power of Attorney and twenty percent (20%) Contingent Fee Agreement with Michael A. Koranda, Esquire (Koranda Firm). On January 6, 1997, Koranda Firm filed a Fee Petition with the Board pursuant to Sections 442 and 501 of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act', 77 P.S. *998 and S I 021. On March 28, 1997, Koranda Finn filed a Petition to Escrow Attorney's Fees, which was granted by the Board on June 5, 1997. The Board also remanded the Fee , Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. 991-1041.4; 2501-2626. ,~~ .. ~- ..~. -",-', ~'~'M_ A99-3624 PAGE 2 Petition to the WCJ. The WCJ approved Claimant's Fee Petition, concluding that the twenty percent (20%) Fee Agreement submitted by the Koranda Firm is per se reasonable and that Weinstock Firm is not entitled to any portion of the attorney fees resulting from Claimant's settlement and is also not .entitled to any quantum meruit reimbursement from the moneys held in escrow. Weinstock Firm's Appeal followed. The Board's scope ofreview is limited to determining whether an error of law has been committed and whether the necessary Findings of Fact are suppOlied by substantial com1Jetent evidence. Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation v. WCAB and Krawczynski, 305 A.2d 757 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. WCAB (Skirpan), 531 Pa. 287, 612 A.2d 434 (1992). Weinstock Firm argues on Appeal that the WCJ's Decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence, nor well reasoned, and is contrary to established law. Weinstock Firm, citing White v. WCAB (Denny), 648 A.2d 361 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), asserts that when a claimant changes attorneys after a Contingent Fee Agreement has been executed, the WCJ has the authority to resolve any question of allocation of attorney's fees between the claimant and his fonner attorneys. Section 442 of the Act, 77 P .S. S998, reads in pertinent part: All counsel fees, agreed upon by claimant and his attorneys, for services performed in matters before any referee or Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, whether or not allowed as part ofajudgment, shall be approved by the referee or board, as the case may be, providing the counsel fees do not exceed twenty per centum of the amount awarded. "=""; t "' .......~~oI,.~ ~~, - c..~ , A99-3624 PAGE 3 The official conducting any hearing, upon cause shown, may allow a reasonable attorney fee exceeding twenty per centum of the amount awarded at the discretion of the hearing official. Where there is a fee dispute between successive attorneys for a workers' compensation client, neither the WCl nor the Board has the authority to consider fornler counsel's claim, because the issues as between attorneys could be foreign to the expertise of the WCl and the Board or involve conflicts or other professional conduct rules. Larry Pitt & Assocs. v. Long, WCAB and OM Corp., 716 A.2d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). "The WCJ and Board is therefore authorized only to act upon fees submitted to it, and under Section 442, approve such fees if agreed upon by the claimant and his or her attorney so long as they, absent appropriate exception, do not exceed 20% of the amount awarded." Jones v. WCAB (Pennsylvania Power & Light), 735 A.2d 185, 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). While we recognize the wcrs authority to approve the twenty percent (20%) Fee Agreement with Koranda Firm based upon Section 442 of the Act, we must conclude that the WCJ and the Board are without jurisdiction to fUliher apportion the attorney's fees herein between Weinstock and Koranda Firms. Pitt, supra. Therefore, we dismiss Weinstock Firm's Appeal.' Accordingly: 2 In light of our disposition, we do not reach the arguments advanced by Weinstock Firm that the we!'s Decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence nor well reasoned. .~-'~ . . ~M ORDER " ~ ,> " - ~ t, A99-3624 PAGE 4 The Appeal of Ira H. Weinstock. P.C.. is DISMISSED. ----- CON IN BY: MISSIONER ~ COMMISSIONER ~~~ C MISSIONER --17I~&,-C ---' COMM{S I NER --.. D~~JvLk COMMISSIONER GUN 2? 2008 BY THE BOARD: ~ (hGJLvy..,o .N- ~ '~ ,~~ '. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA D.EPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD 901 N. 7TH STREET; 3RD FLOOR SOUTH HARRISBURG, PA 17102-1412 Opinion Mailing Date: 06/27/00 A99-3624 CATHY WAMSLEY, Claimant 717 NEWPORT ROAD DUNCANNON, PA 17020 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant PO BOX 3165 HARRISBURG, PA 17105 DISMISSED A.I.G. CLAIM SERVICES, INC. P.O. BOX 499 ESSINGTON, PA 19029 JASON M. WEINSTOCK, ESQ. 800 N. SECOND STREET SUITE 100 HARRISBURG, PA 17102 CHARLES F. MCELWEE, ESQUIRE 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE SUITE 100 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Attached is a copy of an Opinion from the workers' Compensation Appeal Board filed this date in the above-captioned case. An appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania may be taken by any party aggrieved by the Board's decision, provided such appeal is taken within (30) days after the mailing date of the Board's decision. The Board has nothing to do with the filing or processing of further appeals to the Court. Further appeals may be filed in person or by mail (accompanied by U.S. Postal Services Form 3817) with the Prothonotary of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Room 620 South Office Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17120. Attachment "".-'-'"c.4<""""~~OI~_~''''F''_"tlcl,~_",,,,;,r. - ,~.'" '""",ll,"'''"''''''.''''''''' ~""""'''~~'"""~~",-q''''''"'''',"""",,,_'''~-<w''''>:ruIir..~,~..I.'''I\lIIiIlf,,",w.ri~'''_"''t-';;''''''';~"nll'~~~""""="",,"--""""'~'''~"' eICB-170 "REV 2-00 .unOR&TiN'DUSTRY COMI'olONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES BUILDING 901 N. 7TH STREET. 3RD FLOOR SOUTH HARRISBURG, PA 17102-1412 The foregoing is hereby certified to be a true and correct copy of A. BOARD OPINION AND ORDER DATED JUNE 27, 2000 in the case of CATHY WAMSLEY V5. RITE AID CORPORATION (A99-3624) as full, entire and complete as the same remains on file in the Bureau of Workers' Compensa- tion of the Department of Labor and Industry. Certified this TWENTY-EIGHTH day of AUGUST , 2000 ~.,--- /J);:.JJJt~.".. (J f + Chairman WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD ATTEST: ~JUL xl ~~ / Secretary WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD "'o&.'B!iilll1l!~~~,+~,'",-:,; . 'J"L,'.~"" """,>,..""~,:',""'-"'-'-J""-',~,;,-"""->J""",~",,,",,,,,,,.kJ'-'-,,",';"'".,t"""".:6"=I....,.-'w'"""_,~""""'~"="',,~~1.<0.:0,,,d,";Lh3i...~.0. '" ~ ,",", ~~i , " n ;0 n ::;; )> )>m )> 0 '" -i '" z;o m -i ;0 I oj ::t: ^ w )> -< m en " '" O~ ;0 .., ;om 0 ::;; Vl 00 n < )> III s: n mn 0 . Vl 0 ;00 ;0 r s: 0"0 "0 m )>-< 0 -< "0 m -iO ;0 . z m" )> n Vl 0 -i iii )> ,-OJ 0 -i 3 cO z OJ 0 z)> . :;, z m;O 0 .... 0 tD )> '" - "0 ....Vl it "0 0 ::l m "'"0 a. )> 0_ OJ r Oz ::l 0_ .... OJ 0 0 z )> ;0 0 .. '",. "' - '.',-" .~...';; k'''-- i.-iJ,; CA THY WAMSLEY, by MICHAEL A. KORANDA, her attorney, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiff, VS. NO.: 00-6080 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR OPEN JUDGMENT NOW COMES, the Plaintiff, Cathy Wamsley, by and through her attorney, Michael A. Koranda, Esquire, and answers the Defendant's Motion to Strike and/or Open Judgment, averring: 1. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff, on September 5, 2000, filed a Praecipe for Judgment for Default of Workers' Compensation Payments Pursuant to Section 428 ofthe Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. However, it denied that a copy of the Praecipe for Judgment is attached as Exhibit "A" to the Defendant's Motion to Strike and/or Open Judgment. To the contrary, Exhibit "A" is the Notice of Judgment required by Rule 236 of the Pennsylvania Rilles of Civil Procedure. 2. Admitted. By way of further response, a "final Decision" in this matter was rendered on November 10, 1999, by Workers' Compensation Judge Charles Clark (hereinafter, the "WCJ"), when the Defendant was ordered to pay the sum of $13,000.00, to the Plaintiffs attorney, Michael A. Koranda, Esquire. See Praecipe for Judgment for Defaillt, Exhibit "A" (Page 9, Order ~ 2). A "final Decision" was also rendered on June 27, 2000, by the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board , when it dismissed an appeal filed from the "final Decision" of the .- '>~, ~ WCl See Praecipe for Judgment for Default, Exhibit "B." 3. Denied. See Answer to ~ 2, supra. By way of further response, a decision or judgment of a Workers' Compensation Judge is "[mal" unless and until it is reversed on appeal. . Yonkers v. Donora Borough, 702 A.2d 618,620 (Pa. Commw. 1997). Further, "[a] pending appeal does not ... destroy the finality ofadecision ...." Id. at 620-21. See also Restatement (Second) of Judgments S 13 comment f (pending appeal does not affect the finality of an order. unless the appeal consists of a trial de novo). 4. Admitted. By way of further response, the Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation, never filed a request for supersedeas pending appeal from the aforementioned "final Decisions." In addition, Attorney Weinstock's request for supersedeas pending appeal was denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board on August 15,2000, as evidenced by the Order attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Commonwealth Court has yet to rule on the merits of the appeal filed by Attorney Weinstock. It is denied that the Plaintiff and her attorney, have no immediate right to the $13,000.00 held by the Defendant. By way of further response, see Answer to ~ 3, supra. Moreover, "a judgment may be entered in a court of common pleas on a workers' compensation award which is on appeal, unless the employer or insurer has applied for supersedeas" and "[0 ]nly a grant of supersedeas relieves an employer of the continuing obligation to pay benefits." Stover v. Sarko, 154 Pa. Cmwlth. 44, 46-47, 621 A.2d 1244, 1245, appeal denied, 536 Pa. 649,639 A.2d 35 (1994). As noted above, the Defendant herein did not apply for, much less receive, a grant of supersedeas. Therefore, the Defendant is not entitled to have the judgment opened or stricken. See Stover, supra. -2- /"'~~U . '" I "' -'. ,..~~~, --"tWj, 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that GAB Robins and the Defendant have no interest in the $13,000.00 placed in escrow. However, it is denied that a "final order" has not been rendered in this matter. By way of further response, see Answer to ~ 3, su\>ra. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Attorney Weinstock and the Claimant's counsel, Michael A. Koranda, are involved in litigation in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. However, it is denied that a decision of this Court "may be at odds" with the Dauphin County litigation. By way of further response, the pendency of litigation in Dauphin County between the Claimant's counsel and Attorney Weinstock is irrelevant to the issue of whether the Defendant's motion to strike or open should be granted in this case, since no fatal defects appear on the face of the judgment and the Defendant has failed to apply for or receive a grant of supersedeas. See Kurtz v. Allied Comoration, 127 Pa. Cmwlth. 384,561 A.2d 1294 (1989) (petition to strike carmot be granted unless fatal defects appear on the face of the judgment); Horner v. C.S. Mvers & Sons. Inc., 721 A.2d 394,398-99 (pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (trial court order denying petition to strike or open judgment affirmed since Defendant was not granted a supersedeas pending appeal). 8. Admitted. It is admitted that Attorney Weinstock filed an appeal to the Superior Court from a final Order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, at No. 5402 Equity 1997. However, the pendency of this appeal is irrelevant to the issue of whether the Defendant's motion to strike or open should be granted in this case. See Answer to ~ 7, supra. -3- "." . c. " ,,~' ,. -':,' , ~, , "'~, WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Cathy Wamsley, respectfully requests that this Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Strike and/or Open Judgment. Respectfully submitted, TOMASKO & KORANDA, P.C. 219 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 238-1100 By: ~#d MICHAEL A. KORANDA PA ID #58808 -4- 1': ~, ~. <', . '" .,1,' ~"'^' , ' ~, '-- ,-,"'"'. .__,,~~, 'I COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANiA WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOA HARRISBURG 99-3624 ..............---....--- CATHY WAMSLEY 717 Newport Road Duncannon, PA 17020 : Petition For Supersedeas : S. S.# 190-52-3942 vs RITE AID CORPORATION P.O. Box 3165 Harrisburg, PA 17105 DENIED Insurance Carrier AIG CLAIM SERVICES P.O. Box 499 Essington, PA 19029 JASON M. WEINSTOCK, ESQUIRE 800 North Second Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17102 : Claimant's Counsel J MICHAEL A. KORANDA,ESQUIRE 219 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 CHARLES F. McELWEE, ESQUIRE 240 Grandview Avenue, Suite 100 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendant's Counsel ORDER The Claimant's Request for Supersedeas pending appeal to the Commonwealth Court is denied. AUG 15 2000 BY THE BOARD: ~ ~ ~ .... EXHIBIT ]I i A ~ ",----:r -" ~ '--"'1'11,1 VERIFICATION OF COUNSEL I, Michael A. Koranda, Esquire, verif'y that I am the attorney for the Plaintiff in this action and that the foregoing ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PETITION TO STRIKE AND/OR OPEN JUDGMENT is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I make this verification in lieu of the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information concerning the averments contained in the above pleading. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 44'~/h~~~ MICHAEL A. KORANDA =" ,'. ~....-- ~ ~' ."' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this/fI't day of ~~.b11>h1~ , 2000, I, Michael A. Koranda, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certif'y that I served the within ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR OPEN JUDGMENT this day by: I U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to; I Charle~ F. McElwee, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. '240 otandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation By:,dkf MICHAEL A. KORANDA ..i. ' ......[00; l.-.j-- "~ ~ ". ~ . > _ ' "-",OW' ,1, -';;~." ','" : "'--:i ~1 .__ PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and subnitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argunent Court. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) CATHY WAMSLEY, by MICHAEL A. KORANDA, her attorney, (Plaintiff) vs. RITE AID CORPORATION, (Defendant) No. 6080 Civil Jg 2000 1. State matter to be argued (Le.. plaintiff's IOCltion for new trial. defendant's danurrer to ccrnplaint. etc.): Defendant's Motion to Strike and/or Open Judgment 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Michael A. Koranda J\ddreSs: 219 State Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 (b) for defendant: Charles F. McElwee J\ddreSs: 240 Grandview Ave., Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. I will notify all parties in writing within n.o days that this case has been listed for argment. 4. Argunent Court Date: October 11, 2000 wted: 9)3;bo ~~ Atto~ for PLAINTI 1'; '. ~." -~, ",O',C''-'' '< , " ii!;1llli:: A ~_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this /pS(dayof . ~JYJI?e;? , 2000, I, Michael A. Koranda, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served the within PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT this day by: U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Charles F. McElwee, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 240 Orandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation By~~d MICHAEL A. KORANDA !l; "',",,' "1 -'~-"~='~~N""~.~~~i~~<i~'~'~'"'~,j ,-" .";,'O,,J,;"-:,;,j",;w '< ~";;;":'-' "':;""c ,~. ." . ~ ,,..-.,,.1.2; , , - \ E 0 c> ,:;:) -n s:: fJ) ", ;~ 1"'1 ~'G# -0 -rl-rn "'9 e~ .:::- ~~~: :,:::: ..., ,--'---:n ~8 :x ~R. ~ '~ ,"l C> ~ .0, o ~">~..'" c,,,'.-.c.-'.'." ,.~-,; " ",~.', :.;;" - ,"-'. . ~, POST &. SCHELL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAw 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA I 70 I OJ7) 731-1970 FACSIMILE: (7 J 7) 731-1985 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY 8LVD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-7480 (215) 587-1000 FAX: (215) 587-1444 ADAMS PLACE" SUITE 3 70 I WHITE HORSE ROAD VOORHEES,NJ 08043 (856) 627-8900 FAX: (856) 627-445 I I 245 S. CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD SUITE 300 ALLENTOWN, PA 18! 03 (610) 433-0 193 FAX: (6 I 0) 433-3972 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA I 7605-0248 (7 I 7) 29 I -4532 FAX: (17) 291-1609 THE BERKSHIRE - SUITE 205 50 I WASHINGTON STREET READING, PA 19603 (6 I 0) 375-2258 FAX: (6 I 0) 375-2263 September 25, 2000 C) C:> CJ C- CY .'~I -o.ti~.. C~S F. M6EI,.~/EE fYl :'~< (7m 6 \ 2~~2 ~ ~~;,;tMCEWl(EIij;@PoS'l'l?"1~'Ell.coM L,- ,v ..'., C'j g~ mll NO'?b7 I ~/~D354 ~,~~ ': ~~:;~ ?'I, ~Q (..) cS;"-rl ".or (~ .; ::;;:-2 Z ,:;) 5.J: ::< -.I -< Curt Long, Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, P A 17013-3387 RE: Cathy Wamsley, by Michael A. Koranda, her attorney v. Rite Aid Corporation No. 00-6080 (Civil Action - Law) Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed please find a copy of the Commonwealth Court's Decision in the case of Weinstock v Workers' Compensation Appe"l Ro"rel (Wamsley "nel Rite Aiel Corporation). In this Decision, the Commonwealth Court addressed Mr. Weinstock's request for supersedeas relative to the payment of attorney's fees in this matter. Presently, pending before Your Honorable Court, is Mr. Koranda's Praecipe for Judgment relative to the payment of attorney's fees. Please note that, in this Decision, the Commonwealth Court granted Mr. Weinstock's request for supersedeas. I am also enclosing a copy of the request for the same. In light of the same, Defendant Rite Aid is not in a position to release the attorney's fees. Therefore, any grant of Mr. Koranda's Motion would be contrary to the Commonwealth Court's Decision. Very truly yours, Cil-'.t.tv X 7?{.~q.t<,(.<-.." Charles F. McElwee CFM/jtm Enclosures cc: Michael A. Koranda, Esquire "'''",",,- :JJi ''" -~ . ~--," '&i:IilIh ' ..." .< ~ IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYL VANIA IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.c., Petitioner v. No. 1713 C.D. 2000 Heard: September 19, 2000 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (WAMSLEY AND RITE AID CORPORATION), Respondents BEFORE: HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: September 22, 2000 Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. (Weinstock Firm) has filed a petition for review of the June 27, 2000 order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), which dismissed the Weinstock Firm's appeal from a workers' compensation judge (WCJ) order: (1) approving an attorney fee agreement between Cathy Wamsley (Claimant) and Michael A Koranda, Esquire (Koranda), (2) ordering the payment of $13,000;00 in escrowed attorney fees to the law firm of Tomasko and Kor:mda, P.c. (Koranda Firm); and (3) ordering the Weinstock Firm to remit attorney fees paid to it during the period between December 30, 1996 and March 1, 1997. On May 13, 1990, Claimant sustained a work-related injury and began to receive workers' compensation benefits. On October 21, 1991, Claimant signed a power of attorney with the Weinstock Firm. In a decision circulated on March ~~Mb..~~1!~~~gliJ~!~~",.Jri~~,~Wi'fld,li.""h~~R~~ ~~,..till ~~ "lIIlRi'Jl <' . " -- ,',' -'~~ ~, '" ";; " I' i: " , " ! 'I II , I , , , 28, 1995, a WCJ approved this power of attorney and directed Claimant's employer to pay the Weinstock Firm 20% of Claimant's workers' compensation benefits. (WCJ's Findings of Fact, Nos. 3-4.) On December 30, 1996, Claimant signed a notice of termination to "start discharging" the Weinstock Firm. (WCrs Findings of Fact, No.5.) On that same date, Claimant signed a power of attorney and a 20% contingent fee agreement with Koranda. On or about January 6, 1997, Koranda filed a petition for approval of attorney fees with the WCAR The WCAB held oral argument on March 27, 1997, at which time the Weinstock Firm appeared and objected to the petition. On or about March 28, 1997, Koranda filed a petition to escrow attorney fees. The WCAB granted the petition to escrow attorney fees by order dated June 5, 1997. (WCrs Findings of Fact, Nos. 5-8.) By order dated June 11, 1997, the WCAB remanded Koranda's petition for approval of attorney fees to the WCJ, stating: [T]he proper forum is workers' compensation. Review of the limited information presented to this Board reveals that it is unclear as to when and whether the Weinstock Firm presented a fee agreement for approval in any particular pending litigation, when [C]laimant changed attorneys, what are the exact dates of representation for each firm, whether a quantum meruit is appropriate, and other various factors that must be considered for a proper analysis before approving an attorney fee.... As such, this Board is compelled to remand the instant fee petition ... to a [WeJ] so that findings of fact and conclusions of law can be made on any issues necessary to properly adjudicate, approve and apportion the attorney fees where appropriate. -2- -~ . .,- - . ~ ~ . ~. ~~ ,- ,_. ' ~- ~ . ,<,'" "' h . ~ .. . (WCrs Findings of Fact, No.2.) A hearing was held before the WCJ on October 22, 1997, at which time Claimant presented the following credible testimony. The Weinstock Firm assigned Claimant's case to a particular attorney with the firm, but the case was later reassigned to Koranda, who, at the time, was an associate with the Weinstock Firm. In late December 1996, Claimant contacted the Weinstock Firm and asked to speak with Koranda. Claimant was told that Koranda was no longer associated with the firm. (WCrs Findings of Fact, Nos. 9(d) and 9(e).) Shortly thereafter, Claimant received a written announcement from Koranda indicating that he had left the Weinstock Firm and had opened his own firm. Claimant telephoned Koranda and asked him to represent her in her ongoing workers' compensation case. On December 30, 1996, Claimant appeared at Koranda's office and signed a notice terminating the Weinstock Firm and a power of attorney/contingent fee agreement with Koranda. The Weinstock Firm continued to receive 20% of Claimant's benefits from December 30, 1996 until March 27, 1997, when a WCJ granted a supersedeas.! The total amount received by the Weinstock Firm during this period was $519.84. (WCrs Findings of Fact, Nos. 9(f}(g), (k)-(I).) 1 Although the WCJ made no findings regarding the circumstances surrounding this supersedeas, Claimant testified that Employer filed a termination petition in 1996 prior to Koranda's separation from the Weinstock Firm. (O.R., 10/22/97 hearing, N.T. at 23-24.) - 3 - ~1ril~'""~''''>:1t;:-li!i..;eii::,'b-;i1i&",~ffi;..liilaiiii'~M~I-;,:t!:E,..:2;l;'m~;~W~~',j,ioe''''fi'.#1\l,,~i~~J~, - "~""'6B~>rilll!!~_r ,j, ~,'.- ~--. . " I,' I'! '1'1 , il Subsequently, Koranda filed the petition for approval of attorney fees with the WCAB and the petition to escrow attorney fees. The WCAB remanded the petition for approval to the WCJ and granted the escrowing of attorney fees. (WCrs Findings of Fact, Nos. 9(i)-G)') On or about July 2, 1997, Claimant agreed to settle her workers' compensation case for $65,000 pursuant to a compromise-release agreement. The Weinstock Firm played no role whatsoever in the negotiation of this agreement; Koranda was responsible for negotiating the settlement. The WCJ apprQved the settlement on August 6, 1997 and directed Claimant's employer to escrow $13,000 pending resolution of the dispute between the Weinstock Firm and Koranda. The Weinstock Firm had received $10,634.54 in attorney fees from October 21, 1991 to March 27, 1997, when supersedeas was granted in the case. (WCrs Findings of Fact, Nos. 9(m)-(p).) The WCJ found Claimant's entire testimony to be credible. In considering whether to approve Koranda's petition for the $13,000 in escrowed attorney fees, the WCJ stated: "The [C]laimant was not receiving any wage loss benefits because of [the] supersedeas ... entered on March 27, 1997. Therefore, this [WCJ] finds as a fact, that at the time of [C]laimant's settlement of this matter, there was nothing due to the Weinstock Firm under the terms of his fee agreement with the [C]laimant." (WCJ's Findings ofFact, No. 14.) The WCJ concluded: [T]he Weinstock Firm was been adequately compensated for all services provided to the [C]laimant prior to its discharge. Therefore, the Weinstock Firm is not entitled to any portion of the attorney fees resulting from the [C]laimant's compromise-release settlement and is not -4- ". --,,- "",---- ,"..,. ',-,," <..,., ,. ~~, " , ".~,~--.~, ~ ~ ~ , " ,~~ ~,' .",...,."," 'I enti.tled to any quantum meruit reimbursement from the moneys held in escrow. (WCJ's Conclusions of Law, No.6.) Thus, the WCJ approved Koranda's fee agreement, ordered Claimant's employer to remit the escrowed $13,000 to Koranda and ordered the Weinstock Firm to reimburse Claimant for attorney fees collected between December 30,1996 and March 27, 1997. The Weinstock Firm appealed to the WCAB, which dismissed the appeal because, although the WCJnad authority to approve the fee agreement, the WCJ and the WCAB are "without jurisdiction to further apportion the attDrney's fees...." (WCAB's op. at 3.) On July 26, 2000, the Weinstock Firm filed an appeal with this court. On August 3, 2000, Claimant filed a motion to quash the appeal. The Weinstock Firm filed an answer to the motion on August 23, 2000, and Claimant filed an application to strike the answer as untimely. The Weinstock firm subsequently filed a petition for supersedeas and an answer to the application to strike. Claimant then filed an answer to the petition for supersedeas and an application to supplement the record. On September 19, 2000, argument was held on the motion to quash, application to strike, petition for supersedeas and application to supplement the record. L Claimant's Filings A. Application to Strike As preliminary matter, we shall address Claimant's application to strike as untimely the Weinstock Firm's answer to the motion to quash. We realize - 5 - ~~A~:;';;.MI{"Ii!lfu1ttL~~W@Ol~~;:I~1i'''''''t:L''''''':;h<~lli!ll,*,"jftii#J~''' ~"-.....,~~~''''...~- ~ti .,~,L,' " IIV' . .~,~.x = ,., -', " " '1'.',',1,' :! 1,,1 1,1 I" il i,".,j I 'I ~ II that the Weinstock Firm's answer was filed two days late;2 however, because this is a de minimis violation of the rules and because Claimant has not been prejudiced thereby, we will deny the application to strike. See Pa. R.A.P. 105. B. Motion to Quash Claimant alleges in the motion to quash that the Weinstock Firm lacks standing to appeal the WCAB's decision pursuant to Pitt v. Workmen's Compensation Ap-peal Board (McEachin), 636 A.2d 235 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 661, 648 A.2d 792 (1994) (hereinafter McEachin). We disagree. Since the McEachin case, this court has stated that to determine the proper forum for an attorney fee matter, we must look to see whether or not the fee agreement was ever submitted for approval. Larry Pitt & Associates v. Long, 716 A.2d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (hereinafter Long). "If the client discharges his/her attorney before the attorney files the fee agreement ... the attorney must seek compensation in a civil action in common pleas court on the basis of quantum meruit and/or unjust enrichment. Such procedure is consistent with McEachin." Id. at 699 (emphasis added). Otherwise, the WC] and WCAB have authority over 2 Claimant alleges that, because she served the Weinstock Firm with a copy of the motion to quash by first-class mail on August 3, 2000, the Weinstock Firm's answer was due 14 days later. See Pa. R.A.P. 123. The Weinstock Firm responds that its answer was due 17 days after service because service was by first-class mail. See Pa. R.A.P. 121(e). The Weinstock Firm is correct. Seventeen days from August 3, 2000 was August 20, 2000; however, because August 20,2000 was a Sunday, the answer was due on Monday, August 21, 2000. The Weinstock Firm filed its answer two days late on August 23, 2000. - 6 - , . .",,' . ~)'€k ~ fees submitted to it and approved by it while an attorney-client relationship still exists. Id. Here, the Weinstock Firm submitted its fee agreement for approval by the WC] while an attorney-client relationship still existed with Claimant, and the WC] approved that agreement. Claimant discharged the Weinstock Firm after the fee agreement had been approved, after the Weinstock Firm successfully represented Claimant and after the. Weinstock Firm began receiving attorney fees pursuant to the agreement.3 Following the principles set forth in Long, we conclude that the Weinstock Firm has standing to pursue ,its appeal in this court. Therefore, we will not quash the appeal for lack of standing. Claimant also asks this cowi to quash the appeal because the Weinstock Firm has filed a civil action in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County against Ronald T. Tomasko, et aI., alleging that it is entitled to further attorney fees in this case. However, in Long, this court specifically stated that, if the case law in this area causes an ambiguity in a particular matter, to be safe, counsel should pursue the workers' compensation appeal and also seek a stay of the action in the common pleas court. See Long. Thus, here, as a protective measure, the Weinstock Firm is pursuing simultaneously the workers' compensation appeal and an action in the common pleas court. Because the 3 Unlike the situation in Jones v. Workers' ComDensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Power and Light), 735 A.2d 185 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), the former attorney's fee agreement is part of the record before us. - 7 - ~~cb8.t'J,,g,-,,,,,,w"'-"j!d'MJi~.0Mkn~~~~'ffliH"';lli:t'i!ti~~Iil!l!iblE'C'!:fi'!fJ"'12'ili'~",c;'ci,;:"",~"4MA.~~: &"_i.l....~~~~iil~l~!llf'...-,['. Jll ~, . ' ,,-.JL """" - Weinstock Firm has done nothing more than follow this court's suggestion in Long, we will not quash the appeal on that basis.4 C. Application to Supplement At the September 19,2000 argument before this court, the Weinstock Firm indicated that it does not oppose Claimant's application to supplement the certified record. Therefore, the application is granted. II. Petition for Supersedeas We shall now address the Weinstock Firm's petition for a supersedeas pending disposition of the appeal. When a petitioner files an application seeking to stay an order pending appeal, the party seeking the stay must show that: (1) the party is likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the party will suffer irreparable injury if this court does not grant a stay; (3) the issuance of a stay will not substantially harm other interested parties in the proceeding; and (4) the issuance of a stay will not adversely affect the public interest Thompson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Sacred Heart Medical Center), 729 A.2d 99 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (citing Commonwealth v. Martorano, 535 Pa. 178, 634 A.2d 1063 (1993), and Pen..nsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Process Gas Consumer Group, 502 Pa. 545, 467 A.2d 805 (1983)). These criteria require a court to balance the interests of all parties and the interest of the public, where applicable. rd. 4 Inasmuch as we have denied the motion to quash, we also deny Claimant's request for attorney fees pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 2744. - 8 - ,~ -, .,<", , , I:: 1:1 \i " " ri I! f! [I II " ),1 'I II Ii I! I j,! i' ,I I II ~ I I I ,I I I I ii . '" "" . , ~, , " ",,', "'. ~= ~~"",,",(, , A. Merits The Weinstock Firm argues that the WCAB erred in ruling that, although the WCJ has authority to approve a fee agreement, the WCJ and the WCAB do not have jurisdiction to "further apportion" attorney fees. We agree that the Weinstock Firm is likely to prevail on the merits of this issue. It is important to understand the action of the WCJ in this matter. The WCJ approved two attorney contingent fee agreements in Claimant's case. The WCJ thereby apportioned the attorney fees so that the Weinstock Firm reqeives a fee of$10,634.54 for 131.75 hours of work, less $519.84 in. overpayments, and that Koranda receives a fee of $13,000 for 50.9 hours -of work. See Exhibits C-3 and C-5. Indeed, the WCAB's remand order specifically required the WCJ to making findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the two attorney fee agreements so that the WCJ could apportion attorney fees, if it was appropriate to do so. Thus, the WCAB's dismissal of the Weinstock Firm's appeal because the WCJ and WCAB lack jurisdiction to "further apportion" the attorney fees makes no sense. Pursuant to Long, once an attorney has submitted an attorney fee agreement for approval, the WCJ and WCAB have jurisdiction over it. Here, where two attorneys have submitted fee agreements for approval, the WCJ and WCAB have jurisdiction over both agreements. We note that the WCJ exercised jurisdiction over both fee agreements and approved both of them. In doing so, the WCJ effectively determined that, -9- ."~it-~11",a~~flllm~i'Ih~w'lii~I;jlk:k;;-"""\j.lk:-~,j,,,~';;~i0["1'it4lk"',5I]BjiWji~lJ~11!!lliDl~''''''-~.'-:'~r.>a!~ ,"'""'" ,"""- [1' ' ~ ,f. Ie I,j I ),j ! !i although the Weinstock Firm successfully represented Claimant and was receiving a 20% contingent fee pursuant to an approved fee agreement, Claimant could end the payment of the fee simply by discharging the Weinstock Firm without just cause on December 30, 1996. However, if a claimant could end the payment of attorney fees simply by discharging an attorney without just cause, every claimant would do so immediately after the conclusion of successful litigation, to receive the extra 20% in benefits, and hire a new attorney for any subsequent litigation. In this Commonwealth, "[ w ]here an attorney engaged on a contingent fee basis is dismissed without just cause after he has rendered some service to his client ... the attorney is entitled to enforce the contingent fee agreement if the contingency has occurred." 1 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d S4: 110 (1995). Here, the contingency was activated when the Weinstock Firm successfully represented Claimant, and the WCJ did not find that Claimant discharged the Weinstock Firm on December 30, 1996 for just cause. Thus, the Weinstock Firm is entitled to the $519.84 it received from December 30, 1996 to March 27, 1997. B. Other Factors We cannot say that the Weinstock Firm will suffer irreparable brm absent the issuance of a stay; however, we do not believe that the issuance of a stay in this case will harm other parties or the public. Accordingly, we grant the petition for supersedeas. .t2~ ,f /R " ../-----. j ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge - 10- 'il.__ ~ , . :~ ~. '~ ... IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.e., Petitioner v. No. 1713 C.D. 2000 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (WAMSLEY AND RITE AID CORPORATION), Respondents . . ORDER AND NOW, this 22nd day of September ,2000, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. The Motion to Quash Petition for Review filed by Cathy Wamsley (Claimant) is denied. 2. Claimant's Application to Strike Untimely Answer to Motion to Quash Petition for Review is denied. 3. Claimant's Application for Correction or Modification of the Administrative Record Under Pa. R.A.P. 1926 is granted. 4. The Petition for Supersedeas filed by Ira H. Weinstock, P.e., is granted. ~~,4.4L-'J ~~ ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge , Cerb1ied from the Record SEP 2 2 ZOOO and Order Exit ,'~ ~~'"- . "" " ,~ - " .'.' ~. ~ " "", " IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSLV ANIA Petitioner, ..... <= = = c..,", ['"""1 ~'Q I (") o a'~i"':)'-' -'1:ir'1 -000 MZQ Z::e< ::-e-rr,r"i1 U;~"t:J. -\F- r- --I k~ ~:::t:~ 7("':r:: >S;~~ ....., IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C., vs. )> CATHY WAMSLEY, t..~ N ..J Claimant, S. S. No. 190-52-3942 VS. Appeal No. A99-3624 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant. PETITION FOR SUPERSEDEAS PENDING PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Ira H. Weinstock, P .C. respectfully petitions your Honorable Court for supersedeas pending Petition for Review based upon the following: 1. Petitioner has filed a Petition for Review from the Opinion and Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, Docket Number A99-3624. A true and correct copy of the Petitioner's Petition for Review is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A," and a true and correct copy ofthe Opinion and Order of the Appeal Board is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". 2. The Order of the Appeal Board dismissed Ira H. Weinstock, P.C.'s appeal without considering the arguments advanced by Ira H. Weinstock, P.Co' s in its appeal. Instead, the WCAB '.~~' ~. . -~ ." ,'. .":hi!, found that the WCJ and the WCAB do not have authority to consider former counsel's claim for counsel fees when the fee agreement was already approved by a WCJ and part of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation record. 3. In Petitioner's Petition for Review it is averred that the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in finding that it did not have authority to consider former counsel's claim. 4. The evidentiary record does not support the WCJ's conclusion that Tomasko and Koranda, P.C. is entitled to any attorney fees. Moreover, the evidentiary record does not support the WCJ's conclusion that Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. must refund Ms. Warnsley, attorney fees in this matter. The evidentiary record further fails to establish that Tomasko and Koranda, P.C. and/or Michael Koranda, Esquire, did not interfere with Ms. Wamsley's contractual relationship with Ira H. Weinstock, P.c. 5. The evidentiary record does establish that Ira H. Weinstock, P .C. was successful in a termination/review petition filed by employer. The evidentiary record does establish that Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. worked on Ms. Wamsley's file for 131.75 hours and was only paid $10,634.54, much less than the standard $ 125/hour for Claimant's work in the Harrisburg area. The evidentiary record does establish that Tomasko and Koranda, P.C. only expended 50.9 hours in this matter. 6. This mlltter cornrnenced through a petition filed by Tomasko & Koranda, P.C. seeking approval of its fee agreement with the Claimant. Ira H. Weinstock, P .C. objected and oral argument was heard before the Honorable Board. Tomasko and Koranda, P.C. filed a petition to escrow fees. The Board granted this request. The Board also found that Ira H. Weinstock, P .C. had 2 ~ ~ ~~ . " .~ """'"'""-Ie"'''; standing and remanded the matter to the Bureau "so that Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law can be made on any issues necessary to properly adjudicate, approve and apportion the attorney's fees where appropriate." 7. Ira H. Weinstock, P. C. represented Ms. Wamsley in regard to a termination petition. In a decision circulated by the WCJ, the Employer's termination petition was denied. As a result, the WCJ approved Ira H. Weinstock, P.Co's fee agreement with Ms. Wamsley. Due to Ira H. Weinstock, P .C.' s successful representation in the initial termination petition, Ms. Wamsley received additional benefits. If Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. was not successful, then it would not have received any attorney fee. Tomasko and Koranda, P .C. did not representthe Claimant at any time involved in the March 28, 1995, decision. 8. The WCJ's decision went beyond the scope of the remand by requiring Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. to reimburse the Claimant attorney fees. 9. Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. is without information as to Ms. Wamsley's employment status. The granting of this supersedeas request will not affect Ms. Wamsley as to the $13,000.00 counsel fee. This supersedeas request is only to the' counsel fees involved in the compromise and release and for the attorney fees paid to Ira H. Weinstock, P .C. subsequent to December 30, 1996. 10. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. ~ 1781 (a), Petitioner petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board for supersedeas pending review to Your Honorable Court. Said Petition was filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. 11. By Order dated August 15, 2000, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board denied 3 ','~ ~~ -. --,. ~~~ , ~ > ' , ~-- c" ',' ,~,. , '. "~' ~~#;;t, Petitioner's request for supersedeas, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C". For the reasons set forth above, and in the Petition for Review, the Petitioner respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court issue a supersedeas pending Petition for R~view of the opinion and Order of the Workers' Compensation AppealJ3oard. WHEREFORE, this Honorable Court is respectfully requested to enter an Order, granting Ira H. Weinstock, P.C.'s Petition for Supersedeas of the Opinion and Order of June 27,2000. Respectfully submitted, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 171 02 Phone: (717) 238-1657 h' .--- f11 /(~J'r (L K By: ; i \ / \......./ 4 r-'" .~ " - .~ . 'M'" ",-- . IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P .Co, Petitioner, vs. CATHY WAMSLEY, Claimant/Respondent, : vs. No. 11/3 C.D.2000 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (RITE AID CORPORATION), Respondent. '0 Appeal Board Docket No. A99-36~~ <..v 0- PETITION FOR REVIEW -M~S-" ~ <::..-, =. t:~; "J .. -"~. 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9763, which confers upon the Commonwealth Court's exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from fmal orders of government agencies. 2. The party seeking review is Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 3. The government unit which entered the order sought to be reviewed is the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. 4. The Order sought to be reviewed was circulated on June 27, 2000, to Docket No. A99-3624, which provided: The Appeal ofIra R. Weinstock, P.C. is DISMISSED. Exhibit IIAn )l'J1l~1":a ,~ ~-, -,' - .. "'" lfltniiM' 5. Petitioner makes the following objections regarding the Opinion and Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board: (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in dismissing Ira H. Weinstock's Appeal. (b) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in finding that a WCJ and/or the WCAB does not have the authority to consider former counsel's claim. (c) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in failing to find and/or address the issue that after a contingent fee agreement was already executed by the Claimant, then approved by a WCJ after Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. successfully represented the Claimant on a Petition to TerminatelReview her benefits, that Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. would be entitled to an ongoing fee in light of meeting the contingency per the executed fee agreement. (d) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in failing to find and/or address the issue that Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. did not have to refund Ms. Wamsley attorney fees in this matter. (e) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in failing to find and/or address the issue of the WCJ's decision being beyond the scope ofthe remand by requiring Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. to reimburse the Claimant attorney fees. (f) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in failing to find or address the issue of whether Tomasko and Koranda, P.C. and/or Michael Koranda, Esquire, did not interfere with Ms. Wamsley's contractual relationship with Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 2 l'..i -~"~ . ~ ~"- '-& ).lUJi<;!-&; (g) In the alternative, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in not finding that Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. would be entitled to a quantum meruit fee in light of its representation ofthe Claimant. 6. Petitioner contends that the Opinion and Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board is contrary to law and not supported by substantial competent evidence. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C., respectfully requests that the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's decision dismissing Ira H. Weinstock, P.C.'s appeal be reversed and that its fee agreement continue to be recognized. Respectfully Submitted, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17102 Phone: 717-238-1657 By: /\ { \ /lll~ 1^-' JASON M. WEINSTOCK \ Attorney I.D. No. 69272 \) \ 3 --'-,., ~~ , . . '-.- i "'",,, ' ~~~'_ " ~..o NOTICE OF RIGHT TO INTERVENE If you intend to participate in this proceeding in the Commonwealth Court, you must serve and file a notice or application for intervention under Rule 1531 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure within thirty (30) days. "",~~'_. - ~j'L;"", ," . -~""'" '0'" '"~~ ''''J: PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date a PETITION FOR REVIEW was forwarded to the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements ofPa. RAP. 121: By Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested: Workers' Compensation Appeal Board Capitol Associates Bnilding 901 North 7th Street, 3rd Floor South Harrisburg,PA 17102-1412 By First Class Mail: Michael A. Koranda, Esquire TOMASKO & KORANDA, PoCo 219 State Street Harrisburg, P A 1710r Charles F. McElwee, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.Co 240 Grandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dated: 07/26/00 IJIV\ '0! By: JASON M. WEINSTOCK, Esquire '\)i Attomey I.Do No. 69272 RA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17l 02 Phone: 717-238-1657 _~-r.;"'"OO .,~--. ~i COMMONWEALTH OF PEN1iISYLVANI~r;:J (;')j.J1l' ~ DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUST ,1Ll_LC,Lut WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BO' 90~';~I~~R~~R:~T; 1~~~2~~~~~ stfl~~:JUN"_~~_~~oj,; " -............-'. ~-- ~ ~ -' ~... -~.-~ --......." Opinion Mailing Date: 06/27/00 A99-3624 CATHY WAMSLEY, Claimant 717 NEWPORT ROAD DUNCANNON, PA 17020 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant PO BOX 3165 HARRISBURG, PA 17105 DISMISSED A.I.G. CLAIM SERVICES, INC. P.O. BOX 499 ESSINGTON, PA 19029 JASON M. WEINSTOCK, ESQo 800 No SECOND STREET SUITE 100 HARRISBURG, PA 17102 CHARLES F. MCELWEE, ESQUIRE 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE SUITE 100 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Attached is a copy of an Opinion from the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board filed this date in the above-captioned case. An appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania may be taken by any party aggrieved by the Board's decision, provided such appeal is taken within (30) days after the mailing date of the Board's decision. The Board has nothing to do ,with the filing or processing of further appeals to the Court. Further appeals may be filed in person or by mail (accompanied by U.S. Postal Services Form 3817) with the Prothonotary of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Room 620 South Office Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17120. Attachment Exhibit tlB" ,"'.,...., ~~ ~" '>~ ,,~, "-. '",',<' -~'.;:'~<- .-.~ iPJ';i. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD HARRISBURG A99-364,;4 CATHY WAMSLEY 71 7 NEWPORT ROAD DUNCANNON, PA 17020 APPEAL BY IRA H. WEINS1toCK. p.e FROM ORDER OF VB. WC JUDGE CLARK RITE AID CORPORATION PO BOX 3165 HARRISBURG, PA 17105 S.S. # 190-52-3942 HARRISBURG/JANUARY, 2000 DISMISSED A.I.G. CLAIM SERVICES, INC. P.O. BOX 499 ESSINGTON, PA 19029 INSURANCE CARRIER JASON M. WEINSTOCK, ESQ. 800 N. SECOND STREET SUITE 100 HARRISBURG, PA 17102 CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL CHARLES F. MCELWEE, ESQUIRE 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE SUITE 100 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL ., '\l~-' . .-~ ~~~ "", - " -':""""'-ti OPINION McDERMOTT, CHAIRMAN: Ira H. Weinstock, Poc., appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) from the Decision and Order of Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) Charles Fo Clark, circulated on November 10, 1999, approving Claimant's Petition for Approval of Counsel Fees (Fee Petition)o We dismiss the Appeal for the j'easons stated belowo On May 13, 1990, Cathy Wamsley (Claimant) sustained a work-related injury while in the course and scope of her employment with Rite Aid Corporation (Defendant)o Claimant began to receive compensation benefits of $216.61 per week. On October 21, 1991, Claimant signed a Power of Attorney with Ira Ho Weinstock, P.Co (Weinstock Firm). In a Decision circulated on March 28, 1995, the WCJ approved the power of attorney and directed Defendant to pay the Weinstock Firm twenty percent (20%) of Claimant's workers' compensation benefits. On December 30, ] 996, Claimant signed a Notice ofTel1uination, discharging the Weinstock Firm, and on that same date signed a Power of Attorney and twenty percent (20%) Contingent Fee Agreement with Michael A. Koranda, Esquire (Koranda Firm)o On January 6, 1997, Koranda Firm filed a Fee Petition with the Board pursuant to Sections 442 and 501 of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Actl, 77 P.S. S998 and S1021. On March 28,1997, Koranda Firm filed a Petition to Escrow Attorney's Fees, which was granted by the Board on June 5,1997. The Board also remanded the Fee I Act of June 2, 19 J 5, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 Pos. 99 J -I 04 J.4~ 250 J -2626. o;;~~ . - , , , "' '. , ',,~. .T.'~ ~ ~ "'"""", ~r~ A99-3624 PAGE 2 Petition to the WCJ. The WCJ approved Claimant's Fee Petition, concluding that the twenty percent (20%) Fee Agreement submitted by the Koranda Firm is per se reasonable and that Weinstock Firm is not entitled to any portion of the attorney fees resulting from Claimant's settlement and is also not entitled to any quantum meruit reimbursement from the moneys held in escrowo Weinstock Firm's Appeal followedo The Board's scope of review is limited to determining whether an elTOr oflaw has been committed and whether the necessary Findings of Fact are sUPP0l1ed by substantial competent evidence. Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation VO WCAB and Krawczynski, 305 A02d 757 (pa. Cmwltho 1973)0 Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusiono Bethenergy Mines, Inco v. WCAB (Skirpan), 531 Pao 287, 612 A.2d 434 (1992). Weinstock Firm argues on Appeal that the WCJ's Decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence, nor well reasoned, and is contrary to established lawo Weinstock Firm, citing White vO WCAB (Denny), 648 A02d 361 (Pa. Cmwltho 1994), asserts that when a claimant changes attorneys after a Contingent Fee Agreement has been executed, the WCJ has the authority to resolve any question of allocation of attorney's fees between the claimant and his former attorneyso Section 442 of the Act, 77 P.So 9998, reads in pertinent part: All counsel fees, agreed upon by claimant and his attorneys, for services performed in matters before illiY referee or Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, whether or not allowed as part of a judgment, shall be approved by the referee or board, as the case may be, providing the counsel fees do not exceed twenty per centum of the amount awarded. . .",,, . iMi.> A99-3624 PAGE 3 The official conducting any hearing, upon cause shown, may allow a rcasonable attorney fee exceeding twenty per centum of the amount awarded at the discretion of the hearing official. Where there is a fee dispute between successive attorneys for a workers' compensation client, neither the WCJ nor the Board has the authority to consider former counsel's claim, because the issues as between attorneys could be foreign to the expertise of the WCJ and the Board or involve conflicts or other professional conduct rules. Larry Pitt & Assocs. v. Long, WCAB and GM Corp., 716 A.2d 695 (Pao Cmwltho 1998)0 "The WCJ and Board is therefore authorized only to act upon fees submitted to it, and under Section 442, approve such fees if agreed upon by the claimant and his or her attorney so long as they, absent appropriate exception, do not exceed 20% of the amount awardedo" Jones Vo WCAB (Pennsylvania Power & Light), 735 A.2d 185, 190 (Pao Cmwlth. 1999)0 While we recognize the wcrs authority to approve the twenty percent (20%) Fee Agreement with Koranda Firm based upon Section 442 of the Act, we must conclude that the WCJ and the Board are without jurisdiction to further apportion the attorney's fees herein between Weinstock and Koranda Firmso Pitt, supra. Therefore, we dismiss Weinstock Firm's Appeal.' Accordingly: 2 In light of our disposition, we do not reach the arguments advanced by Weinstock Firm that the weJ's Decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence nor well reasoned. '!1~-~' ~ .. '."~"'_ u_ "~.; WIblWE\l!S21'''",', A99-3624 PAGE 4 ORDER The Appeal ofIra Ho Weinstock, PoCo, is D1SMISSEDo BY THE BOARD: ~ (hL)L.yy-.(j .N- CON MISSIONER ~ COMMISSIONER ~9i~ C MISSIONER --1?%~t:/1f' f ~ COMM SINER -- D~~Jvc~ COMMISSIONER GUN 2'1 2006 ~-~~ - ~']JIWjl~,;;: ';OMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYlo \NIA Vlt0RKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD " HARRISBURG 99-3624 CATHY WAMSLEY 717 Newport Road Duncannon, PA 17020 : So S. # 190-52-3942 vs RITE AID CORPORATION P.O. Box 3165 Harrisburg, PA 17105 DENIED Insurance Carrier AIG CLAIM SERVICES P.O. Box 499 Essington, PA 19029 \JASON M. 'WEINSTOCK, ESQUIRE 800 North Second Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Claimant's Counsel MICHAEL A. KORANDA, 'ESQUIRE 219 State Street Harrisbur~, PA 17101 CHARLES F. McELWEE, ESQUIRE 240 Grandview Avenue, Suite 100 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendant's Counsel ORDER The Claimant's Request for Supersedeas pending appeal to the Commonwealth Court is deniedo AUG 15 2000 BY THE BOARD: Exhibit "C" ~,'M~~ "- " ,~ ' , ' IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C., Petitioner, vs. CATHY WAMSLEY, Claimant, vs. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant. PROOF OF SERVICE S. S. No. 190-52-3942 AppeaI'No. A99-3624 . .0.'. ...:,--' ", - ~ 4' "" ,~",'" I, Jason Mo Weinstock, Esquire, attorney for Claimant, certify that I am on the date of this Proof of Service serving a Petition for Supersedeas Pending Petition for Review of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upon the person indicated below and at the addresses indicated below and at the addresses indicated below by deposition copies of the same in the United States Mail properly addressed with first class postage or charges prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of Special Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure Before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania: David Hawkins, Secretary Workers' Compensation Appeal Board Capitol Associates Building 901 No 7th Street, 3rd Floor South Harrisburg, P A 171 02-1412 Michael A. Koranda, Esquire TOMASKO & KORANDA, P.C. 219 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 ..... Dated: 9/1100 . Charles McElwee, Esqnire POST & SCHELL 240 Grandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 By: -I.'.., ,~ - "' ,- LA CK - '-~w,.,""",C>l<L .-, ,,' ::.~:o',_ ,',:>,,-', ,__ _ '""'_',ici',,",,-,"_ _';':',' i~."-, <,",. ~"."-" ,;, ","',. ',c; "'"".~~d.' , -:;'.p,oc: -"'0;;;,,,,, "c._ --O"_",h -""I ""'i! , . , CATHY WAMSLEY, by MICHAEL Ao KORANDA, her attorney, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Vo NOo 00-6080 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, on this day of ,2000, a Rule is served upon the Plaintiffto Show Cause why the Judgment in this matter should not be stricken and/or openedo Rule returnable in twenty (20) dayso Furthermore, all proceedings, including executions on the Judgment are hereby stayed pending oral argument concerning the Defendant's Motion to Open and/or Strike Judgment. J. ; ~. "~ ,--' . - " ,'. ,"'~,,' --, .,c' '''-,,~ ,_~ ":... __' ., -" ,'), 'c'i.,~'";,-,,'"~"i~ ',d_ ,__ .~,'~L"'.;"',,,,; .-. >__ i';" ."" , , r , , , . . CATHY WAMSLEY, by MlCHAEL A. KORANDA, her attorney, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Vo NOo 00-6080 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION TO STRIKR AND/OR OPRN .nrOGMRNT 10 The Plaintiff, Cathy Wamsley, filed a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment with this Court on September 5, 2000. A copy of the same is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"o 20 This matter originates out of a fee dispute between Attorney Koranda and the former counsel of Cathy Wamsley, Jason Weinstock. On or about August 6, 1997, Attorney Koranda and Mso Wamsley both agreed, pursuant to a Stipulation of Facts (attached hereto as Exhibit "B") that GAB Robins, as the Third Party Administrator for Rite Aid Corporation, would escrow the Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000000) in attorney's fees which is the subject of the Entry of Judgment, "until afina1 decision is rendered or an agreement is reached on the same." (emphasis added)o 30 No "final decision" has been rendered nor has an agreement been reached in regards to whether Attorney Koranda is entitled to the Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000000) in attorney's fees or whether Mso Wamsley's former counsel, Attorney Weinstock, is entitled to the Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000000) in attorney's feeso , ~. - '-' -.,~"".; , ','~, - , '-'~;,y_:J,~~-.f,'_ ,,"--,~';J<;;.;". ~,~",'~,>,;."",", ,,,,,,,,,,<,,,C~;;:i,>:,,,~,,,,,"L'ii',,,"~,,!,c,,,..: '~'_5 "~_ . @O, r T , C , , . 40 On or about July 26, 2000, Attorney Weinstock filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the June 27, 2000 Decision of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeal Board awarding the aforementioned counsel fees to Attorney Korandao See Attorney Weinstock's Petition for Review attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C" and Workers' Compensation Appeal Board Decision as Exhibit "D"o 50 As such, the decision of the Commonwealth Court is not final and, as such, Attorney Koranda and Mso Wamsley have no right, at this point, to the escrowed monieso 60 GAB Robins and Rite Aid Corporation have no interest in the Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000000) which has been escrowed other than a fiduciary duty to retain those monies until a "[mal order" is rendered from which no appeal is taken. At this point, because the matter is still in litigation, it cannot be said tha,t a "final order" has been reached and Attorney Koranda and Ms. Wamsley have no right to the aforementioned monies at this timeo 70 Furthermore, Attorney Weinstock and Attorney Koranda currently are involved in litigation, over the exact same monies, in the Court of Common Please of Dauphin County at Docket Noso 74 So 1997,2292 So 2000 and 5402 Equity 1997. As such, any decision rendered by the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County may be at odds with the litigation currently pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin Countyo (See docket entries from Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County attached hereto as Exhibit "E")o 8. As well, the aforementioned docket entries refer to an appeal being pursued by the parties in the Pennsylvania Superior Court at Docket Noo 1067 MoDoAo 20000 --~ ~~"~ - -, -^ ,~~ -,,,~ .,~'-"'~"'" "0,"..', " ,";,"",~- ,--';,,,-.,~;-' ,> t',~" ,C'_" 0",." ~'"" _:,;,,-,0.. '. _c_ -- - .-, -,;' ";'-"'~'C " J", ",j~," ..,-, ;")'<..',i- '~';~" ,,' "~ '. -""-i " . , . . . WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation, respectfully requests that the Plaintiff's Judgment be opened and/or strickeno ~ rJn~?LL Charles Fo McElwee, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P,Co 240 Grandview Avenue CampHill,PA 17011 (717) 731-1970 Attorney ill # 36017 Attorney for Defendants, Rite Aid Corporation and GAB Robins North America, Inco Dated: September 7, 2000 ~~~-uo-uu U~;L'_ ,..L,-O<::'...J~-.......,;:;,.... . " , , r , CATHY WAMSLEY, by MICHAEL Ao KORANDA, her attorney, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, VSo NOo m' (P()g'() ~ RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT, RITE AID CORPORATION: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A JUDGEMENT IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER HAS BEEN ENTERED AGAINST YOUo JUDGEMENT AMOUNT: $13,000000. DATED: C-:;;r S .-2C2:21 /5/ ~. /P- ~ PROTHONOTARY ~? If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact: Michael A. Koranda, Esquire Tomasko & Koranda, P.Co 219 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 238-1100 SEP 06 2000 08:37 717 238 6190 PAGE. 03 .- , , , , , COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD 1171 South Cameron Street, Room 305 Harrisburg, PA 17104-2511 CATHY L. WAMSLEY 717 Newport Road Duncannon, PA 17025, Claimant, SSN: 190-52-3942 THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. CLARK v. TERMINATION, PENALTY AND COMPROMISE & RELEASE PETITIONS RITE AID CORPORATION P. 00 Box 3165 Harrisburg, PA 17105, Defendant. GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA, INC. STIPULATION OF FACTS PURSUANT TO THE COMPROMISE AND RELEASE PROVISIONS OF ACT 57 Claimant, Cathy L. Wamsley, has carefully read this Stipulation. The terms of the Stipulation have been fully explained to her by her attorney, Michael Koranda, Esquire 0 Accordingly, the Claimant, Claimant's attorney and Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation, do hereby enter into and intend to be bound by the following Stipulation: 1. On May 13, 1990, Claimant sustained a work-related injury during the course and scope of her employment with Defendant. Claimant's injury involved her back, neck and right shoulder. Defendant acknowledged Claimant's work injury and issued Workers' Compensation benefits to Claimant pursuant to a Notice of Compensation Payable. Said Notice is amended to reflect the additional injuries referenced in Paragraph One of this Stipulation. . -1, ,- - ~~ ^ - ~- , , . . 2. The parties have agreed to resolve the Claimant's compen- sation case in accordance with this Stipulation of Facts and the Compromise and Release Provisions of Act 57. 3, Claimant agrees that the only work-related injuries that she suffered during the course of her employment with Defendant are those work injuries identified in Paragraph One of this Stipulation. Pursuant to the Compromise and Release Agreement, Defendant agrees to pay Claimant the sum of Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000.00). Claimant agrees that, by payment of the same, and the execution of the Stipulation, she releases all claims, past, present or future, for any disability or work injury and wage loss benefits attendant thereto which she suffered or may have suffered during the course and scope of her employment with Defendant. Claimant further stipulates that by accepting the sum of Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000.00) she recognizes the same as a final compromise and settlement of any and all claims which Claimant or her personal representatives, dependents, spouse, children or any other party who may become a beneficiary of the Claimant under the Workers' Compensation Act, might now or hereinafter, have under the provisions of said Act arising out of her work-related injuries with Defendant. Furthermore, Claimant forever discharges Defendant and its workers' compensation insurance company and their personal representatives and successors from all claims whatsoever which mayor could hereafter arise under the provisions of the pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. 2 " ~ - ~''''''''i; . , , , 0 4 . Claimant further waives any claim which she may have against the employer or the insurer arising out of any permanent injuries out of specific loss, Claimant also waives any claim for any disability related to any specific loss. 5. This agreement includes, but is not limited, waiver and forfeiture of any and all rights, demand, legal claims and/or actions Claimant may have now or in the future against the employer for the work-related injury that she did, in fact, suffer or any work-related injury which she may have suffered during the course and scope of her employment with Defendant. 6. Defendant has filed a Termination petition in this mattero In light of the Compromise and Release, Defendant withdraws the same, Claimant has filed a Penalty Petition. Claimant requests that her Penalty Petition be dismissed. Moreover, Claimant gives up any claims for the same. 7. The parties have elected to resolve all wage loss claims and indemnity payments arising from Claimant's work-related injuries as set forth in Paragraph One of this Stipulation for the sum of Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000.00). Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the Defendant shall continue to be responsible for all future medical expenses related to the work injury in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. Accordingly, Defendant reserves all rights regarding any question or challenge to Claimant's medical bills. 3 ~ .' -' ,,'," _ -' ,,"' h. ~ .-. -H"'~ . . , . 8. The parties have waived the vocational evaluation of the employee in this matter. 9. Claimant agrees and stipulates that by the payment of the sum of Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000.00), this represents the final payment to Claimant of any entitlement to wage loss benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act for any injury which she sustained during the course of her employment with Defendant. 10, Claimant believes that this Compromise and Release is in her best interest and desires the Compromise and Release settlement be approved by Your Honorable Judge. 11. Claimant has reviewed this Stipulation/Compromise and Release with her attorney, Michael Koranda, and the same has been fully explained to her by Mr. Koranda. Claimant further represents that she fully understands the legal effect of entering into the Stipulation/Compromise and Release on her ability to collect workers' compensation benefits 0 12. Claimant has a fee agreement with Mr. Koranda in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of Claimant's wage loss benefits. Mr. Koranda and his predecessor, Ira Weinstock, are currently involved in a fee dispute in this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to the Board's Decision of June 11, 1997, Defendant, through its third-party administrator, GAB Robins North America, Inc., shall escrow the attorney's fees in this matter, until a final Decision is rendered or an agreement is reached on the same. 4 , ,- """""0' '"""""'-""-'" , '" . . . , . 13. Currently, Defendant's Appeal relative to its first Termination Petition pending a Decision before the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. If said Appeal results in a favorable Decision for Defendant, Claimant agrees that she will not file an Appeal of the same. 14. Claimant agrees and hereby stipulates that there are no subrogation interests in this matter involving Blue Cross/Blue Shield. 15. All parties have reviewed the Stipulation/Compromise and Release and all parties are in agreement and intend to be bound thereby, Dated: '1-/;-97 MICHAEL KORANDA, ESQUIRE Attorney for Claimant Dated: ?f'-fo-97 Dated: ~/f7 CA,L..:Y~!::: ~ CHARLES Fo McELWEE, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant 5 ~ , . ~,,~'= x,. "-o'~~ ~> ~ ~ :. , . , . VERIFICATION I, CATHY L. WAMSLEY, the Claimant referred to in the foregoing Stipulation/Compromise and Release have read the same and I agree that the facts set forth are true and correct. Furthermore, I have had the legal effect of it explained to me in my native language. I agree that I intend to be bound by the facts as stipulated and that I intend to have the Judge use this Stipulation of Facts in deciding the Petitions pending before him. I am signing this Stipulation and Verification voluntarily and freely and without reservation. Dated: y-~-CJI 6 , . , , , IN THE COlYfMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.Co, Petitioner, vs. CATHY WAMSLEY, ClaimantlRespondent, : vs. No. 1113 ~o C.D. 2000 g WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (RITE AID CORPORATION), ~.,- ;:-::: T,i ;....,) CT' '- ':.,::>'-- Respondent. Appeal Board Docket No. A99-31524 t.~ ~ ---. --. '. PETITION FOR REVIEW v.J c- 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.CoS.A. 9763, which confers upon the Commonwealth Court's exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from fInal orders of government agencies. 2. The party seeking review is Ira H. Weinstock, P.e. 30 The government unit which entered the order sought to be reviewed is the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. 4. The Order sought to be reviewed was circulated on June 27, 2000, to Docket Noo A99-3624, which provided: The Appeal ofIra H. Weinstock, P.C. is DISMISSED. ~~ --, '"'__ "~' T ~"";;"~,. ,~,,,--' -,' " l~, , . , . 50 Petitioner makes the following objections regarding the Opinion and Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board: (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in dismissing Ira H. Weinstock's Appeal. (b) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in finding that a WC] and/or the WCAB does not have the authority to consider former counsel's claim. (c) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in failing to find and/or address the issue that after a contingent fee agreement was already executed by the Claimant, then approved by a WCJ after Ira Ho Weinstock, PoCo successfully represented the Claimant on a Petition to TerminatelReview her benefits, that Ira Ho Weinstock, PoCo would be entitled to an ongoing fee in light of meeting the contingency per the executed fee agreement. (d) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in failing to find and/or address the issue that Ira Ho Weinstock, PoCo did not have to refund Ms. Wamsley attorney fees in this matter. (e) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in failing to find and/or address the issue of the WC,T's decision being beyond the scope of the remand by reqUIring Ira Ho Weinstock, P.c. to reimburse the Claimant attorney fees. (f) The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in failing to find or address the issue of whether Tomasko and Koranda, PoCo and/or Michael Koranda, Esquire, did not interfere with Ms. Wamsley's contractual relationship with Ira Ho Weinstock, P.Co 2 ~' , ' - iicl~ , . , . (g) In the alternative, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board erred in not finding that Ira Ho Weinstock, P.c. would be entitled to a quantum meruit fee in light of its representation of the Claimant. 60 Petitioner contends that the Opinion and Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board is contrary td law and not supported by substantial competent evidenceo WHEREFORE, Petitioner, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, PoCo, respectfully requests that I the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's decision dismissing Ira Ho Weinstock, P.C.'s appeal be reversed and that its fee agreement continue to be recognizedo , Respectfully Submitted, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Strect Harrisburg, P A 17102 Phone: 717-238-1657 By: !it, 1\ : , , , , \ 1 , - { JvI.A 1^-' ( \ JASONMo WEINSTOCK ! \ Attorney LDo Noo 69272 , \J 3 - . ~ ~~ , '0 , NOTICE OF RIGHT TO INTERVENE If you intend to participate in this proceeding in the Commonwealth Court, you must serve and file a notice or application for intervention under Rule 1531 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure within thirty (30) dayso '......... '"~, ".[ ".'- ".'- J..Jik:.~. , 0 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date a PETITION FOR REVIEW was forwarded to the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements ofPao R.A.Po 121: By Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested: Workers' Compensation Appeal Board Capitol Associates Building 901 North 7th Street, 3'd Floor South lIarrisburg,Pi\ 17102-1412 By First Class Mail: Michael A. Koranda, Esquire TOMi\SKO & KORANDA, P.C. 219 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Charles F. McElwee, Esquire POST & SCHELL, PoCo 240 Grandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA l7011 Dated: 07/26/00 By: fL 1V\.1v! ( JASON Mo WEINSTOCK, Esquire ! : Attorney 1.Do No. 69272 \ )'RA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. \ 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17l 02 Phone: 717-238-1657 _:-'. ,'.~ . ~,.: COMMQ~ALTHoOF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD 901 N. 7TH STREET; 3RD FLOOR SOUTH HARRISBURG, PA 17102-1412 Opinion Mailing Date: 06/27/00 A99-3624 CATHY WAMSLEY, Claimant 717 NEWPORT ROAD DUNCANNON, PA 17020 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant PO BOX 3165 HARRISBURG, PA 17105 DISMISSED AoI.G. CLAIM SERVICES, INC. P.Oo BOX 499 ESSINGTON, PA 19029 JASON Mo WEINSTOCK, ESQ. 800 No SECOND STREET SUITE 100 HARRISBURG, PA 17102 CHARLES Fo MCELWEE, ESQUIRE 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE SUITE 100 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Attached is a copy of an Opinion from the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board filed this date in the above-captioned case. An appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania may be taken by any party aggrieved by the Board's decision, provided such appeal is taken within (30) days after the mailing date of the Board's decision. The Board has nothing to do with the filing or processing of further appeals to the Court. Further appeals may be filed in person or by mail (accompanied by U.S. Postal Services Form 3817) with the Prothonotary of the Commonwealth Court of pennsylvania Room 620 South Office Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17120. Attachment :1!iilW.~ ' . l. - ~ ~d~ _ , ' ~, ,'~ : ~~ ,'-, "~''hi1 o , . . 0 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD HARRISBURG A99-3624 CATHY WAMSLEY 717 NEWPORT ROAD DUNCANNON, PA 17020 APPEAL BY IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C, FROM ORDER OF VB. WC JUDGE CLARK RITE AID CORPORATION PO BOX 3165 HARRISBURG, PA 17105 S.S. # 190-52-3942 HARRISBURG/JANUARY, 2000 DISMISSED A.I.G. CLAIM SERVICES, INC. P.O, BOX 499 ESSINGTON, PA 19029 INSURANCE CARRIER JASON M. WEINSTOCK, ESQ. 800 N. SECOND STREET SUITE 100 HARRISBURG, PA 17102 CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL CHARLES F. MCELWEE, ESQUIRE 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE SUITE 100 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL ~- ~ -",- " .' ,"'. ~.',;; Mtr . , OPINION McDERMOTT, CHAIRMAN: Ira Ho Weinstock, PoCo, appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) from the Decision and Order of Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) Charles Fo Clark, circulated on November 10, 1999, approving Claimant's Petition for Approval of Counsel Fees (Fee Petition)o We dismiss the Appeal for the reasons stated belowo On May 13, 1990, Cathy Wamsley (Claimant) sustained a work-related injury while in the course and scope of her employment with Rite Aid Corporation (Defendant)o Claimant began to receive compensation benefits of $216061 per weeko On October 21, 1991, Claimant signed a Power of Attorney with Ira H. Weinstock, PoCo (Weinstock Firm)o In a Decision circulated on March 28, 1995, the WCJ approved the power of attorney and directed Defendant to pay the Weinstock Firm twenty percent (20%) of Claimant's workers' compensation benefitso On December30, 1996, Claimant signed a Notice of Termination, discharging the Weinstock Firm, and on that same date signed a Power of Attorney and twenty percent (20%) Contingent Fee Agreement with Michael A. Koranda, Esquire (Koranda Firm)o On January 6,1997, Koranda Finn filed a Fee Petition with the Board pursuant to Sections 442 and 501 of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act', 77 P.So S998 and S 1021. On March 28, 1997, Koranda Firm filed a Petition to Escrow Attorney's Fees, which was granted by the Board on June 5, 1997. The Board also remanded the Fee , Act of June 2, 19150 PoL. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. ss I-I 041.4; 2501-2626. ,''-'''- - - -~L ~; , . 1 ", ' \ ~ . A99-3624 PAGE 2 Petition to the WCJ. The WCJ approved Claimant's Fee Petition, concluding that the twenty percent (20%) Fee Agreement submitted by the Koranda Firm is per se reasonable and that Weinstock Firm is not entitled to any portion of the attorney fees resulting from Claimant's settlement and is also not entitled to any quantum meruit reimbursement from the moneys held in escrowo Weinstock Firm's Appeal followedo The Board's scope of review is limited to determining whether an error oflaw has been committed and whether the necessary Findings of Fact are supported by substantial competent evidenceo Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation v. WCAB and Krawczynski, 305 A02d 757 (Pao Cmwltho 1973)0 Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusiono Bethenergy Mines, Inco vo WCAB (Skirpan), 531 Pao 287, 612 A02d 434 (1992)0 Weinstock Firm argues on Appeal that the WCJ's Decision is not Suppolied by substantial competent evidence, nor well reasoned, and is contrary to established lawo Weinstock Finn, citing White v. WCAB (Denny), 648 A.2d 361 (Pao Cmwltho 1994), asserts that when a claimant changes attorneys after a Contingent Fee Agreement has been executed, the WCJ has the authority to resolve any question of allocation of attorney's fees between the claimant and his former attorneyso Section 442 of the Act, 77 PoSo 9998, reads in pertinent part: All counsel fees, agreed upon by claimant and his attorneys, for services performed in matters before any referee or Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, whether or not allowed as part of a judgment, shall be approved by the referee or board, as the case may be, providing the counsel fees do not exceed twenty per centum of the amount awardedo [,"""""....,.", -, " , . "l \ ,~ . A99-3624 PAGE 3 The official con~ucting any hearing, upon cause shown, may allow a reasonable attorpey fee exceeding twenty per centum of the amount awarded at the discretion of the hearing official. Where there is a fee dispute between successive attorneys for a workers' compensation client, neither the WCJ nor the Board has the authority to consider former counsel's claim, because the issues as between attorneys could be foreign to the expertise ofthe WCJ and the Board or involve conflicts or other professional conduct ruleso Larry Pitt & Assocso vo Long, WCAB and OM Corpo, 716 A02d 695 (Pao Cmwlth. 1998)0 "The WC.J and Board is therefore authorized only to act upon fees submitted to it, and under Section 442, approve such fees if agreed upon by the claimant and his or her attorney so long as they, absent appropriate exception, do not exceed 20% of the amount awardedo" .Jones v. WCAB (Pennsylvania Power & Light), 735 A.2d 185, 190 (Pao Cmwltho 1999)0 While we recognize the wcrs authority to approve the twenty percent (20%) Fee Agreement with Koranda Firm based upon Section 442 of the Act, we must conclude that the WCJ and the Board are without jurisdiction to further apportion the attorney's fees herein between Weinstock and Koranda Firmso Pitt, suprao Therefore, we dismiss Weinstock Firm's Appeal.' Accordingly: 2 In light of our disposition, we do not reach the arguments advanced by Weinstock Firm that the wers Decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence nor well reasoned. -,', "'. ,~~~ ,,-~.~~, , . " , ',', \ . ORDER - .'" - ~~'~""i . ,) I . " ( A99-3624 PAGE 4 The Appeal of Ira Ho Weinstock, PoCo, is DISMISSEDo CON MISSIONER -~ COMMISSIONER ~{~ C MISSIONER a~&,i --' COMM{S I NER -- D~~Jv'-~ COMMISSIONER SIN 27 2000 BY THE BOARD: ~ (nLJLvy.,O.ff- " ,No_" S10~...MDate'~/~ jq97.Atty-~~r;~~ . ,~ ~J-.l.o, _1()(n7u.caQ,~,--&(JOt:>__ d W Y.. nnn.._" t..C,6( , (I. ~ ' . ',1,", ~ ( l '~___:!.'~~___'_.__'____.b_'~ ____'.~_.,. ,..,___PlaintifL-_.,..___. ,_..,__.,...,.., on__DefendanL, ..:/~.f:~~~;W:"-"-~~.LL.Y/~-r& ~. Z~~~.~_ad..._.. ._no..._._nn.___' '_...m n_ ~--~- -- 'n_______V.5_..."......._....___,., __,..__.__. _,_,___ .,..,-~~==-=-.~~....~=.~.=~=:~==~==. ~~___--i . . .. .~. ..... _=.::===-~i=~=--- . - - ..~ -~q~~--~iil~"'..~~ ~ . J~Y....1.2.,-12..~,L:... Upon consid_eration 0 t!)\' ,Erne ;encY_J~eti.!:io~~~~_ ~~,!;'_~_~.!l s.f e.r, _K9 _..cl, te.~~,. XJ.lgL and P_~ R~,;t:'c~"'__ JJ~_J~LbJn..~eJ~y_.O.r_g, ~J::,~Q.__J:Jl~J:" _.g,_J{"e_a.~tIlLWj..1.1_.Q_e_ __~~~JLqXl". J ~.t).!:l_~J::.Y_;,~ ,--122L__~1;:_~:...JiL.P......J!l.._'M_iJ)~~Q.qr_tr9_QJ{l.~4~qJ:~~~l:1e_Q.5tl.Jmi.. n Coun t v_ _.~ourth~~:__t~_~~~sider the Pe~ition. Respondent is directed to a~pear at the Hearing. Petitioners are directed to have a copy fo the Petition and Order to b, -served-.u~theRespondent-'-immediately. /S/ Scott A. Evans, Judge. See Grder --F'{ledo Copies-: to atty 1/16/97 , :,n JaDY..~EY_E_,_1997 =_,After a conferen:ce in ch~,!!1.1?e.~ th~ foll~~~ing has been resolvec' ; __~E1~".?_c.~E~~~.::~~$edL a.. b.. c.. d.,. (~ee Com~_~_~~ Orde:)_.:=..{_ The remainder of listed clients shall be reviewed and available for court resolution at conference/ --'h~-;;i;.g--b~f~~-Th-i~c;;;;t~on January 29, 1997 at 1;0-0 p.rn.--"in Courtroom No. 2~- /S/ Scott A. Evans, Judge. See O;der Filed. Dist by Co;;;";'t'-'i/23/97--- '~~4.,;7/'~~1;;'i~'-;J;;':;;;i _&;:h_~~~J;;.,aX;:i;;4Z~i::' An~ , -JJ?~~~~..3<l.~b--~-'~" .2------.;;----;-..".~ J:'Z7.-:.L:~..</rL~r~."i'. ,L,.,../~ .1L.~_ d-=-.7~__ ~~:::_;oZ~:;:;-~QliITl.9l'1JSE _S.E:r,:Um:l~~UPJ2ROYED..llY_ TH~~~~URT~=~sLSCO.I.T..A....EY.ANs.,. L Jp:D.c;;!:':.,.u.s.llE., ORDE~..l')".J>.D_._________~, .~,"'__. ,.~ _". __.____.___._ ;.__.:J:m,J.o,L"L,..J3's3-=_B65.e.ON.DSNL'.s__l'!-t=.oJo.L...Eofl, _(..o.~cmET..,_Ei.l.,l;;::P___"... L..Ee: e,,_.LI ._1-'35'3..- .8Nsw.E/?_..-r:D__R~.s e.o.N ,D/S/'oJT..!.s,... .,J2'.Co:J:.1.0N_ EaR.. , ...u:>"rrE:m PT__<-VCCH_..N.E,W...,Y>'"lJ"l:U:/S';: J 1="1 LE' P "__no ...._ F ::;' Signature Date Dlsbarsel ,l".iUJ)gJ::e.e___....____ "'_"~_ _____ ____. Atty_Appearance__ ,_____ ._.. '..Sl:]erifL.._,___ .__........_ _no :\_ESC.l:QF__Funq.~_ "prgihonotary___.._,. --"-' -- 'n.;,:> , -="'~~"'-"""'>"".. -, ~~....~" "",",^' ~ ~ ",,,,, ...L~ ,_j',lriri"" '.....~.....OlI ~'" -~'~ - "~- ~-~Jr ~ jr-'----~...."_.--......,,",,...,.........""'~ ,:i""fi ';j ! Ft:;i>. 'i5-.-1-"L'I~BLEE /,.,) I I'--CooJ.,n:e.m.EJ:. ,-, .,..,ELLe.l:2 I . ',I; ~ ' ~~. /'1'/'1 - ~~edtJn""~I""!:. AJoJ.sW~-Z:/) C' 1Z..~~~}i!.. !~:rEm~",12/-<:2" JJ>l~L-&E5.E.QbtD-E.i'>LC._Ell-F h , F=",~ 0 -z.3~ - 1"/2":; I Ino,."-l~OFv"'("'LO,.j<; ""-0. l"E:l:moble&S/~WJ~J::.~ JO.ND Nli!W rnATTl;:& F"LF'D ,f,J RFSp"...l<:t== ""-"'--l2.F<'Pb"-lDt,=~tT':'.5 """cs-r,t>...\ :--1"'~c..oJo.lT'l="'" Pr ~/LF" D , _In'lARc..H ,Ct.~Lo"qCj,. B"tEF' , <':t:.", . ~~--"F---B..€SP.t:lJoJJLe:~__JJ':J.I:>TJ1)}"L.EQt._ '"L ..sl)f'Po.e.,......OF--J~R.6.,l..IIT!JNAt:.'I__..oB:;r!;'cJ:10"'.s7 ---Et~ April 5, 1999- The above matter is 1:30 ]).,",0, in Courtroom No,. 20 /s/ Dist. 4-5-9,9. April 28, 1999- IT IS HEREBY ORDEREJ:l. that p'laintiff Weinstoc1<_' s Preliminary '- Obie_G_tions_~~_ten_da}l~~l'!1_~.pded New MaJ:J:~2Z-~,!:14 Count~_J;_s.Jaim a...!'_e DENJ]~._Ls/ Ri_~h~ , I A. Lewis, Judge. See ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION filedo Copies mailed 4-29-99. I May 19, 1999- The hearing in this matter set for Friday, May ~ 1999, shall be ~ntinued. Counsel shall consult with each other fo~ suitable alternate dates for , the rescheduling of this matter and promptly suggest the same to the Court. -/s/ Scott A. Evans, JLdg~. See ORDER fil~d~ Copies Dist. by Court 5-20-99. hereby scheduled for hearing on May 21/ 1999 a, Scott A. Evan~J_Judg~_o_.._See_ORDER filed. ,CJl.p..i.~,' September 2, 1999- The above matter is hereby scheduled for hearing on September 28, 1999 at 2:30 pom. in Courtroom No.2. /s/ Sco~~a. Evans, Judge. See ORDER filed. Copies Dist. 9-2-99. )> · April 18, 2000- After an extended period of time has passed for completion of dis~ covery on the underlying main action., this Court's orders directing distribution/ , < - -.', -- .,.,..,- escrow of contested.file claims are hereby resci~ded. All monies hBretofore es- crowed are to remain escrowed until further order of Court. All outstanding motio :_,_ a.Q_(t_ cr.o_2.S.".. me. t .i,9.,n_S_,-,.fQ.1"'_C_mlt..emp.t_aud/,o,r___Ranctio.ns,_ar.a..he.r_e.by_~d.eni,e(L...__/--s!--Sco--t.-t-A--.---_ i EvaJJlL.-JJJ-<l.g~__S_e..L0RD.ER.....fi 1 Rn. r,np; p~ ni ~r.. ~Q.u:l""t 6._1 q-O--O.o---__ i mA-l a~""O..o.o.......,~~o~-n:.EI<S-c..O'~JbJ.ED---'>Er-- " ~ ~IC:I"D ' ,_____,__ , C ' , " '~~..nTZ.60-0_,.,~_a:IL( r;:- nF_&,eeEi"\l--=ro__~~uLL,...E1J..E'J;)_ Mf'.Y 170 Z"o-o-.......BE:'(;),LJl""~ FCl~aIPr; Ei.LSn I April 28, 2000- SEE MEMORANDUM FILED. Copies Dist. by Court 8-28-00. ~ll(,."c;r "lll 'Z./)DQ- -rK'AN5C RIPr Or::- ~OC."""j') 1"-1(,...<; -=r6Tjmcw,~l>J12. I . , ORAL AR(;.llm"'...iy -:z,y PAC'_t:=<::. v.>A.<' ~~ t'J,.j S6P'Tt:;n1Be:.E:-Z' 1-L9~E1(..ED -s 0 6 'lIJlI J ha-reby C0(jJfv thJt the foroQoin{ ;-; ~ ~_corre~~e or;jllral __ ~~'o ~ --Pfo/Ij -- i~-- , ~---- , ,,~'-~ , !\ , , -~" ._~~ ~i\r , , ,,,,,,,",,,,,~ - ,,""--,~....-..... ,.. ~n=" ~, '" =~ lb1iiWJi~';i'L .LIFl..UJ. .L.LJ.l"l \.....-VUl"l.L.L \....I.L V J..L J-\.vJ...LV1~ r,;nl<,J by: IMR Umitcd.FnrmJ97 E917322 1 , I . 2000-S Datc of Entry Writ Df Execution Issued: Appearance For: Plaintiff: Defendant: Y'YI A.y $1> 7nf"l() , __ "PI.AI to..IT1'=~ 'e; '::-112.~'- C; ef ('")C I Served Writ of Summon u bfRR.a@A TO f(Z.S So ASlswers, J.R. Lotwick, 1J?-~~ (] 0 A ,("" cS f'lilia$ _? M 13~ ~;:-' ~--"""" A ~j p,~s~~~ I t...lTc:=:~12D~j(lTnrz...1 r-:-< ...,.",.:.~--=.~,-..--.- J'vt:-J -, Z{)()/) _ At-..JC..I^)~ If;) . ' 1~n-r.:rRR()r-A--r()I<Il::;C" ~,t=J') ~lJl""i If">. 7(")(")0- ~"7TE: ~ F=<,/A9-...\<;........ fJooJDDt)<;Jf"')t=::. <;'WlPSDI0 E<;GlIJ'RF;' t;;"ITFe~ APPt:::".<\12"'.Y1= 610 t?Y IG<.-r>-l RY"J l 0 f',EHAL.,:' Or:. Dc:;'1=t=:/oo.J,!::lAtJT'C. .06.. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a l~~. and correct (,uv~r III. orlglnal ,Jup/UJ d. I ~~ PRJtIJ9RstJry Dat~1!;'t Date! AmDunt Filing Fee Itl!j.,. ) r.: Adm, Fee - Divorce Atty, Appearance Adm. Fee - Custody Sheriff's Costs App't. of Master Discontinuance Cash Bond , Praecioe for Argt. Cert.ofReadiness Rule of Reference Escrow Funds -,,~,j~"";:" ~"- ~""~ ~ ,"v"" J ~-~~ ~-~~'-"~' '" . I'rinl.d by, IMR L1mllod-FormJ91 f:6J%666 SUITS 1997 '74- 0 97-5 Entry By Summons ( /) Complaint ( ) Date of Entry (I.n '0 t, /q'<rl Petition ( ) f Appeal ( ) , Writ of Execution Issued: Custody ( ) Trespass ( ) Appearance For: ^ / , /70 Assumpsit ( ) Plaintiff: \ (j./.. A ,N. ~ /J #, o -r.~ ~ h~ Visit31ion ( ) / II Divorce ( ) Defendant: -v Mortgage Foreclosure ( ) Change of Name ( ) Ejectment ( ) IRA H. WEINSTOCK and "(ALTI.. 0'" "~.."'En) Quiet Title, ( ) IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. Appt." or. Viewer!'> ( ) Replevin ( ) VB. Declaration of Taking ( ) Forma Pauperis ( ) RONALD T. TOMASKO and "'" Mental Health ( ) MICHAEL A. KORANDA and . Protective Order ( ) . . TOMASKO & KORANDA, P.C, , District MI\gistrate ( ) ..,.,,'" J.J 'P ,,.. "~'L - - .. i I t ,,1, "" . . , , , , /-/~ Defendant (5) Sheriff 19 fL.. Served Writ of Summons upon So Answers. Jo R. Lotwick, Paid $ 67. 1(;- bl=:C, ~O, ,,,,q"/- c..OmPIA1"-lT FILE/") -r~,..]. 20 0 ,q"9 - PI:>Ec...lm,...'A'ii?Y oR1"/YTII'>/-lS nt:: -rHp. n~ F"'r- rV J:>.o IUT:' 1="1/ E:l2> ,>"AI<l 7.(\ . 1'1'1<;1'- N~A'-ON '\- c...",'Ff f!..'1 .:71<lt"tH-- '" ~. NlO.AI.-ON , ~<;r,:,UIe.t; . ENTlO.~ )QPP€ARI'\l-Jc..~ -'\~ Ch - (' ()lJJVSFI r'1t\..1 BE': /-lAt.-1=" f"lF' DEFf'j.)DA",-r.s, , Sel':: P~AE:'-I pt; FI'I"to, F',cB II. I "lQl1'- J'lAu..>rrtF1='c; Y')1/~:illf}..J 1)I\.)nt.=fl Ll'>c...~L RrJlF "'10'9 "Tf) c.-,,,,p!':L !l:l;;SPDN'.t:'<;; F"RbWl DE F"F.-'lDl'\...,'T.S -ro, P~Ip,j;"JF"r:"<' f:"12..c;r 12F"- !l.VE:.ST t:'OR paDDl..)t:rJ I"> 1\..) oF' DbC. VmE.tJ'C~ ;:", u:;: '" Fi<.f'. J3, I "Ill$'- BR.I E:F' It$ .sU1>PbeT D~ PRl":1 "", "'1'1(."1 (')1<"-1=:'(",.'1"'1"",1<;" oF' f>F. P F: IJ j) ill J>JrS 0 FlU,,:.!> ,:'<;;.6 ZG. J'l'lr- PLJ<lIN-rIf"I"'S, 6R11":F' 'I hi. 6PPMI"TIDlJ ,6 Dl=f"'F"J DAUTS1 P12l'ium,,,,J<lA.y OP.T!;:c.T' bJJ S 0 PII ftp ft:P, 77, ,qqg- bE:Fr:;.),jT\AN"T~' q",<;w"e.. "'0 PL~lflJ,-rIF=F~ vnl''iT(OJJ UIv D/O" ll'V'J4J fl.UIt= Lit" q -rt> (J"t,.,.,?l::.t RI= <Phl<.J "F'~ t=R../)Yn ~r;1::'F 1JDA~ 'TO PLA, J>J7' J F't: I!'::. "-,,,,,. i2.{: Q\.JF'.5-r f='M'. PJZ.oDuc...-r I t'lU nF=' ~C'-Ut?1F'...::rr<; ~' r:/1 FD ,", To NG'.Ji7 PAt'_r I Amount Amount i Filing Fee (',,oj) I -"~ g; Adm, Fee ~ Divorce Atty. Appearance (I Adm. Fee - Custody " Sheriffs Costs , App't. of Master I . Cash Bond Discontinuance \ Rule of Reference Escrow Funds PM' ^ :- ,1iw- A...., ~1^.J '100-1"1,;' .,. -'~ " -n , ..~ CL C; Ibrl ,_/,o./qflo ~,-I~ /.1 c-l,""/- '_ ) tI_qq i I ,~ , '''"C,~",_...i_"^,"-._~_==O~_~-''>o.,"-,'c~_,'':\',,'''''''',",,~' '& ~~'~--~ "~"" iill~___""~~~-~~~~~__'"-""""'~i\,,"-_i1'. ,..-"'~'~"~ "" iill ~- :' mAllo Yo I"lCfS?- gin"" 15 IS!;VE:l> lJPO>.l PUClIWT,;:-P "7D ~I/F 1'l ('f'>Y11Pt.""N W'T'I-I/"l,-r;WENTY (2D) DAyS PP,llm c.€:l!.v" ( tfi< <;I'F'fCS/z' l4 711Dt'~mF:1V1 ~ 1 l . . o.~ NON PP.M.' l<:;,kF: PRAec.IPF: PILeD m,qf. CI, ,qqg'- DF/:"F=""'-IDJ04JVTc;' '::;"JPPIFI'YIE~L A",-~C;(NF..f!...c:. 71"') PllO.l....'rnr=-'F"C; RF~IJ1="~<;T t::'/)R, PJl.r...1:>fJ(''''Tlh..:J r,;:" DOc.Ol'11~~~ t="/~T "<;FT. i=lLFb YtJ,AL. II. I qqR"_ 'j)FS:-~kIDAJJ"T".~' ~1\.l('.AJt:2 AAll> f)p;:)FL"T"//)ili -rl> pi plJ..\'T'lE="F< <p't".l'JlJn Rt:it!Jui=..<T ~~te PltaDuCTl6#o..i 6r:: T'Y')r..{..Jw-.F..k..1r"~ 1=1LE:.J:J . PR"TF.('T,VF olZ.n{?€'. ""klD <;TAY oF' ?do R, (, Po '-10/1'-'-10/3 ""IVn ))l'1lJPHIN ::'1 ii :i mAt. If, ,"l"ll?- omb-,-.,"'-l ,r=MZ. PIlOr<::t;D,>J",-S PURSVA/oJI" Tn ('O)JJ..J-ry RIJIi=" 4(}JQ, P,LED Y'V!,QR ,." JqCl)~- l:>t::~E.to.JD~),.rr'5', fY"tOT/r")~\ I="o~ (~I:)Q,)~ Of: Cl)fJef T~ 1="/L-(; A ~FpL':I .sQ/~F' I.JAID4E12 L-DCI'lL 12lJLE.. nr:: ~~IVIL PRC,.....~bu'1Z.~ 2// D,(4J. P'1u::r> March 17,1998 - Upon consideration of defendants' motion for prot~ctivp. ornpr and stay of Proceedigns concerning three depositions scheduled by P1Efs for April 2, 1998, AIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The motion is denied: the depositions shall go" fGl.rvlard as scheduled. 2. Counsel for plaintiffs shall Drov'ide his written summary of plaintiffs' current known ledge about, fdefendants' interaction with the three deponents 'not later than Thursd~y, March 26, 1997. /S/ Richard A,' Lewis, J. See Order filed. To Atty 3/19/98 I , W1>'l1Z. 71'1, l"lq~- PU""I'"T"Ir:"F'<; ANS,,'F:I2,'fi["D ]'>1"1""1"'-lj'>AtoJT<" -- r'nr>-rlbN F'bR. I!="J"to.Ji'"' 'T"" J"',U= 'jil,Rf::PL.Y p,rz.'F'F',FILFD March 19, 1998 - The Defendants' Motion for Leave of Court to file a Reply Brief Under Local rules of Civil Procedure 211 D(4) is granted. /S/ Jospeh H. KreY'i'i'f1Hte'f; "',Judge. 'See',D:rde-r', fiTeG.'o:'''Copies Mailed 3/20/98 mAR,2='1 ,,,,,qll- D~P'~N/,)"""rT<,1 REPLY At<IPF' ,.., o<;/}PPo~ o PRt=' 1 '''' I kl t'lRy r,P,'T/:.C-TI ",..Jc, , Fr L F'1'> 'Yh~12 2~ ,qq<2'- ])rsr.f)J..\"'-lId/Ju:lk\(r;=' pi ""'tJTlF"r-'" 0,' "7:R.1'l 1-/0 u.JFIN <'"T()(,"IC. - <;/::'1;;. PA>'lE:c / pe: PI' a March 23, 1998 - Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That: 1. The motion is granted in part. 2. Defendants shall produce documents responsive to the eighteen (18) categories of plaintiffs' first reqeust for production as follows: '(See complete Order) /S/ Richard A. Lewis, Judge. See Order filed. to Atty 3/23/98 2::..dJ2 19 '11' Case ar~ued before the Cotine" banco April 8, 1998- IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants' Preliminary Obj ect ions in the Nature of a Mot,ion for a More Specific Complaint to Counts 1 through V is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of ~ervice of this Order. 2. Defendants' Preliminary Objections in the Nature of a Demurrer to Counts VI and VII of the Complaint is DENIED. 3. Defendants' Preliminary Objections in the Nature of a Motion to Strike Claim fo Attorneys' Fees and Reference to Certain Clients is DENIED. /s/ Richard A. Lewis, Judge. See ORDER filed. Copies mailed ~-8198. ~' 7/ r-+-'/.z~ /'1? p. C /7. /./ (. 7"-..:t; /:+ g- MAY "2t:> I "lOr\? - PRE:L.,rYl' h1i'lR." tlP,TF..I.T / D/0J.5 1'>1'" DE;~E.NDA/JrS o PL.J4JNTI1::or='S Ai'YlI"IoiJ:lE..D e.omPl..ClIIS, 0 F"'L.ED i"Yl.clv ?q ,QQS7_ vt=f(./~lrATI/),..j or:: PLAII...,-rI~1=IS Jiqmt::I\J1)~i) fj)YYJPIAJJo..ft o 01"" OF' tat'"TI/)....1 As TI'l (",,5' "'~I '..u:u:V.1.D-UAI) t>NF' (') J\./ LY) If') F'I ( F;r:, ..",AY 7'l, '~'l\?- gR,,::1=' I>.J SuPPDI!..T oF' D'~Te:~~'D~ -rfl D~J:"r:::-JoJDJCatl....lTS"" <;~('^h.IJ) <;f?T brnt:( '1'I0JoJS , F" ~,.., r::/)~ ,,,,JA'..1:> -ro FDLi.-OLJoJJ 1o,J(_ I PtAJ,.J -r/~S='-.5 P/!.(;Lin1I^,A~ PIZF= t lvn INA/?y 6F" PJ<lG--g , . . ,~' ~-<l<""-',"",''''''''-'''' ,~"'" " ~' ~~ . ~~ f"'~"'''~~ -"'"'.. a~" ~ """,,,,- _~_~~'1'J'.' . . 74 - ,$ ('J ,\,9, . ',', '.\ . . .. . , i I !. --m.flY ~"lo 1'1'7?- PL"'''kl7''IF'''1'''~ PIl.Et...ln1'J.JAR.y DI<,Tt=rf'llId To """F"'fENbA",-r<;J <F:CO/oJ1) 'iFf oF" PRF1IYnI""Arcv OFl-rCC.TII);JC,1=I<..E..L 'TUNE '10 I "'IS? - HRIEI"" , rJ <;'JPPr:eT OF'" PRf=U,.,INAIZ'I 0><,1"(::71 b':;<; tJF hI"FF/J~.aNT<; "'0 PLAINTIFF'" AmENDED Ct>n1PLAINT F'"'n F/,,) , JU/oJ~ loR. ,qq.R'- Pd~,e:-:~ ~f' ""1",.,U= f')F;:'F=.}.JDA~ I)>J /,)Ppn~l'.rltn.J '""1"'n -r"1-lt=' PLAJJ...\f'rll=.t=~1 PRt=lllYln..1A#2.'Y' DP,1"'E(';rJfHJ<;: .,-0 TI-Jt=' PI2.f=' I 1YY11 to.JtQ.li!!..y ()B T~r"Tll\kJt; (')f= TI-lt==: 'DE=' 'F'ENDA"'-ITC; ,t) TI-IF Pi a,,,,,,,,,, FJ='S )q,Y"YlI='N nFO (OrYli"L'" ,JUT "'11 FJ:> , ::rlJNeL~o I<\'l'ir- PLAINT'IFF' S BRleF IN OPPoS ITID'" -rD DEFF"foJ- !"IAN''''' PRFltm,NARy o13:n=:C:TIO"-lc; -rn PLJO.IN'T,'F"F'" ~YY\F~I'>FD ~DYY1PLI'\ II>lT, FIUeD ,,"" <1,1'1"\9:- bE'FF.NDAI>lTS' Y>'lD"-/O>J FolZ I F'A\Je (IF ({)VI<.7" I' riLE A RF.PLy BP"F.F {JIUf)<=J2.. I "(_JO.t !<'uLE: IJF Lll/lt... PJ<6rt=.- /')J.)P<F. 211 nr..,.j'J RE':G-A;<D'NC'_ DF1='I"'"j DAh.rr<;' PR,{;'.UYYI'''JAe.-I nRTE=('- -r',h/J; T" PLA1N'TIF1="S AWlI"JJDFD C.O~/>JT FILF=b o July 10, 1998 - Defendants' Motion for Leave of Court to File a Reply Brief undel Local Rule of Civil Procedure 211 D(4) Regarding Defendants' Preliminary Ob;ectfu to Plantiff's Amended Complaint is hereby granted. /sl Todd Hoover, Judge See ORDER, Filed. To atty. 7/10/98. ;~-;.. 7"L'I l"l, 1"1"\<;(- 1)e;:F'FNI'>AIJT<' PRi=:llmlldAR1 OBTF-<..-noJ.)" -r'o PI A '''I-r FI t...E".O , R~t~" /2.1< IF1=' PI "",>-l-rIFF~S 1>0 SUPPOl<-r ~F AmE'rvr>F=],,) ( om- 19.1l. Case ued before the Court n Se tern 19, 1998-IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike Complaint for failure to conform to Pa.R.Civ.P. No. 1024 is DENIED. SEE COMPLETE ORDER, FILED. /s/ Richard A. Lewis, J. 11EMORANDUM OPINION, FILED. COPIES, MAILED 9/14/98. <F:pT, Z3 ICJ"/<i- ('AI D,,Jt=Cl ..... KI=~~"6 poro BY . Pllv(~r-~, P<;(ill)'I<F 1.u,-rHDl<Aw<; PPPI"'AIZA"IC'(:; ClO- TH:: F~ IV q.<lNT<; . "<::"'-0 7.~0 1~9<<- Rl-l()nA 0 ,,-r'nuo,,- 'I- BRAOt F)' 81 R,l(H,,\.>..lt:: 0 f"<.{';}\)11<1'" i=JVT'1=:il<' JAppr-ARAN~~ "',,' ~F~~~~. 0 , (')-+ ,Cl '/:- 6: ""rbr.oN-,-t-", nrlnl'''IL<l-I7"uYrvl-th,,~ -to f(:it.o ().mu.N1cl.>.c\.. ~~^"L}-ol ~.~.tll or"-, 0'3" ,qqq- Pu:l,toST,r=F''s ?RE=IIY"""'AJ<'v O/3TF.r:T\ o>-lS ID DF.t='"F.'J- o n~),.n-c;" )o..)~W I<'YIATT~L "+ ("nl)J.jTt=1Z...CI Jo4IY"Y\, F""'H..Ff) Nt>V, rz. ''''''I$?- (,JR.,.. oF'" ~l)I'>1""DN'" IS 1<:$1)1=1'> 10 :TOI N ':t:e.p, j-l, 1,Je:'k)~{)CI:' AS Au Al"irIT,h.,l<>I T"lF'FF':'JDA/o.JT, <!'Ft=: peAFrJPF. ;::"'u:'D "",,I,q ,q"1~-n"'FEjo.\hA"'T'" 1'\"""1='./""1='0 >'\/J,<;,.If"12. 1'\/o.Jf) "j~vJ VYlA'TTf"Jl.. AJoJh (_~"kirl=':r? ~ I ~\....., -)n PI >'\"..\.,-,1""1="<; AWlE'kl/)EP (.hVYlPI AIlJT;FiLEr /00,,,,,1 1"1 IqqS?- RR.,E"t:=' I,,} <!,UPPOICr of PL.t:I,,,ITIPF'<, PRr-:, 'YYl,~y ng..,-,e;r;' ^l..J~ -rc D€,CFk.1D)C\J\.rrC:;' N~/..J VY"larrt:=P ~Nn (/')f)~~e{ J ~Im~... :rAmP; 12 ('l )0 (,)/J Rr=:I-lJ<41 F .on=: IZ.fZ'-I r-< . Rc=: loll'll F OF DI!>"'l" ( "1'\ t>>JS ,_,_~-r.. __""-,,,-,,,,,,,;;r,>, "~",~",,,,,,,kLi>lI'IIll.j~~'"I~,,,,,,",i~,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,""",~I_"... -'- ~~~....~ '.......,"';lh~~..~-' =. ~. "".'!t. I i o r"-hc:'\ ~. rY"'o~o .~, ~ ')~v . .::r"Io.1, III "1"1"1- R.GtlF'':; O~ ,=~~t-J I)""...rr<:, . l'LAIIo.\<<r"I'j:"f:'\!s PJ<F't !ml.J"'~ nRT,:;("cno.J<;. .7'00 ~ . . I , NE/u Y't\""'T~12 A...,D <nlJ.J,-,:;~roL.>"\I>"Yl) HI E(":> ""'fl" I'i! I'1Qq- PL"'INTIF'F'I<, RF:PI7-I -rD 1)F"r=l='IUDA/0T.';' i'JEW W\"'~ o IC\....Jn ( h,il....rn:::.( (~I Jlti u,y\ J 1='1 L~f") DF:C " '<>'0,"1- f(~I>DA S,-,.,..mr ~ ReADLE)' By IE <, ex 1)1 ;, F" IN I'TI-l Dll.'<\'~ lQ DP 1=-",.eANc..F. Oi'J KE'l1AL.F'" DE:(, ''1.'' "l"l"l- YYl<="11'F:, !=\JAIo.IC, "'- iA,/':>OD5, DfO p,)' <;1"" P~/;'''[l t='<'G-111121'"' ENT(=-l..<, Al>Pt='Al'AI'oiGF: nJooJ BEJd1;u...1'" , , DI"'1"'F.'>-l rnA tJT"i , :1'AJIJ '.3 ':2.000 TJ\="C~Jo<J.~~1 /YlOTII")..J IJ).,.jDfEER. I nr JL:lI ',' , LoY'vl P e:r I~r=;, SPoJ-...b~~ .-,.,... Dt;::PP.k\no.J<\JT~' I' _ oF' Dn{" u \o<'Yl.---~>-.:rr-< r- J w;;: tJ January 18,1 2000- A'conference relative to the above captioned matter is hereby scheduled ~or February 3. 2000 at 2:30 pom. in my Chambers, Dauphin County Court House, Fro~t an:d Market Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. /s/ Richard A. Lewis. Judge. See ORDER filed. Copies mailed 1-18-00. March 24, 2000- IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon review of defendants' Motion IJnrlpr Local Rule 4019 to Compel Responses to Defendants' Requests for PronllrHon of nn('l1 ments, this court finds the followin2: 1. Defendantsl requP-Rt tn nhr~in rimp ~nn billing records for the entire course of their emp1&rment at Tr~ H~pin~r()~~ is GRANTED. 2. Defendants' request to obt2>i!l the 1989-1998 tAX retllrn" he H Weinstock, P.C. is DENIED. /s/ Richard A. Lewis. Judge. See QRDER filpn. C6p;p" mailed 3-24-000 ,~ rPPo..; 17-,D..J Jnt:::!,:"E.JJ ~....l~' '-0 AmElJoE:r ::feU""' Ro QIGHWloJ! or::: DE'Fl;;'NDAl\l1:<;. 1<' A"l-l~..... L. ol= R tJt t== "+ I'll'? R~l'>I.J~-D~ Pi..n nl Jc:no~ APJ(,L I<;(~ ~^n- PLAH....rrJF~I~ Y'Y\l'1r1o....J _~1"5P,,~_ -'-0 PLAIN-rIi=l='S r-:"DlllOM1-l "t- n"C,.Ul'l'll'_J-oJT<; I F'",UE:T) April ?oO! 7000 - Afrp.r nlH~ consiclp-ration of the attached motion ~Q compel----9Jl5..w..e..IT to intp-rrogatories and/or productllion of docnffiP-nts. it is hp.rE~hy_~ Defendant providp. the docuffiP-nts within 20 clays of servicp. of this ornP-Y or show cause why sllch an!'lwers/document!'l are being withheld. Failllrp- to compJy will result in sanctions as provided in Pa.R.Civ.P. 4019. /s/_'I.odd Hoovflrr ,T11(i~p. -rn r ...nYY\ Pc::"l I YY'lYY"l~ K.'2':'z:..IJE:~ Foe. PlZ..bnll(':;r',~ See ORDER filed. f'Yl~ Iq, 7/'>0(")_ tze:.;P<>.JSe: '-0 P!.Allo.lTIF"FI5 D,<;(" 1"'>v'F.'IZ..'f. H<-E:P 7 - ~o~",,~"'~ .., Koe.~DjQ Po('" IS.." ~&L.D .-, -oD1'l'\A5.J;:.l ~Av I J ,.<f'")nn., --f-'ooo'f~~ ~ C:SG,w - of,A....,nl"\ E<;r;",,~F F.1o..lJ:E:~~ olo.l ~4Alr- Dr=' (".h"....rn:::.eCLA,m Pl,o,'>-<T'\I-1"'<;. RnJAI J")-.:T---I:o,I'l'l1S.S!;;.o.- WI ,c.I-IAEl A 0 fC'(')I'(A"'J':>f' A..D -rT>W>A<;1Ll'> "" IGrleAl\lDA p, C '. !=il r-;f') YY1AY 3D 7.",DO_ c..Eii?:1:,F"1 (.A"";; PJtG/l!F.' (;)U,Sn-E:' "Tn c:.,E;~I("E;. DF 51)I',Po';'Io.JAc., Pll~..:rr ~IJI'=: '-!OOq '?? I W6c:.,-rec.e., ,,,,<:.,>I'&,,), ~N)o'::;'f='.D V'Y>o9.':t-3.o, 2JlflQ - tr-:'R:n F"1(.A1'"F; F'lU=:~r-:"""5 rn:;: SU~ Pbf":i'JAc., P, '1?-<;1)A.>JT Tn g,,1J1 <= 40/)0, 077 " I.JVU""'~I~l I2.li"AL"T'J (J) '), roiL .E':D {\,,\r'>T1t>t.l '-0 C"mPEiL '-0 "'~II.J~ ,..,r:: ("---hYY\~F:(2 CJ A L SEPUlIlJJ I ~"",,",' G''''i'j' !fl!l [I f I ' ~" " d~ lJiti'JU fig IS a lru~ ;;i1d GGrif.~t cOpy,Of the orIginal fli,d, ') , I '. "7""1 ~',J t ..0..1;~.,J C!.ol(ll<..//'I..OJ Pro;;loiwtary "To , f' , ) ....... "~< ""'C "~~~~1,' , , ,. ,",., "..';fj j . . . . . ,,~.. 1 ~ t ( I . . ( . . . 1 J ,'1 " CERTIFICATE OF SRRVTCR AND NOW, I, JANET To McGARVEY, an employee of Post & Schell, PoCo, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike and/or Open Judgment, on all counsel of record and parties of interest by placing a copy of the same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Michael A. Koranda, Esquire Tomasko & Koranda, P,Co 219 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jason Mo Weinstock, Esquire Ira Ho Weinstock, PoCo 800 No Second Street Suite 100 Harrisburg, P A 171 02 ~J;j ?1i;lb~ ' ANET To McGAR Y Dated: September 7, 2000 r " , . "c_f ~ " '. . " " 'r . I?- ^~- . '~,,' " t. \, ,. , -, ',< '.'-, ,. '"'~ .... ',I! o v~f rntl ":7--.- ::;;;:;" Clj.-- ;:::, :S ,'" o~'/'__,' j; C~:: -7 =1 ...< - ~ . . . . c.-n '-:1 ') .... . . . .,,' -D "',) :-:c -< (,,_:' '1 .,-,!.. c ~ .....d.'.....~. , liII~,;(I~" .~ .... ;j>. ..... CATHY WAMSLEY, by MICHAEL A. KORANDA, her attorney, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Vo NOo 00-6080 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW RlJI ,E TO SHOW CAnSE AND NOW, on this day of , 2000, a Rule is served upon the Plaintiffto Show Cause why the Judgment in this matter should not be stricken and/or openedo Rule returnable in twenty (20) dayso Furthermore, all proceedings, including executions on the Judgment are hereby stayed pending oral argument concerning the Defendant's Motion to Open and/or Strike Judgment. Jo -- -.- - "." "" .-- ~.'>I'.i<:i&t-_ .,. o' -. CATHY WAMSLEY, by MICHAEL A. KORANDA, her attorney, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Vo NOo 00-6080 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW RULE TO SHOW CAlJSE AND NOW, on this day of , 2000, a Rule is served upon the Plaintiff to Show Cause why the Judgment in this matter should not be stricken and/or openedo Rule returnablc in twenty (20) dayso Furthermore, all proceedings, including executions on the Judgment are hereby stayed pending oral argument concerning the Defendant's Motion to Open and/or Strike Judgment. Jo ;-.-- ~~~ , .. - - -' " t ~ - ~ ~~,'.j, ~,~ l '... CATHY WAMSLEY, by MICHAEL A. KORANDA, her attorney, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. NOo 00-6080 RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant CNIL ACTION - LAW RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, on this day of , 2000, a Rule is served upon the Plaintiff to Show Cause why the Judgment in this matter should not be stricken and/or openedo Rule returnable in twenty (20) days. Furthermore, all proceedings, including executions on the Judgment are hereby stayed pending oral argument concerning the Defendant's Motion to Open and/orStroceJudgment. J. ,,~ -,