Aluminum Co. of America v. Neal

Decision Date20 January 1982
Docket NumberNo. CA,CA
PartiesALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Mrs. Willowdean NEAL, Widow, and Guy Anthony Neal, Dependent Child of Arvis Eugene Neal, Deceased Employee, Appellees. 80-448.
CourtArkansas Court of Appeals

The Rose Law Firm, P.A. by Phillip Carroll and Jerry Jones, Little Rock, for appellant.

George D. Ellis, P.A., Little Rock, for appellees.

GLAZE, Judge.

In 1976, the Administrative Law Judge, Gary Shelton, awarded weekly compensation benefits, plus medical and funeral expenses to claimants Willowdean Neal and Anthony Guy Neal, dependents of deceased Alcoa employee Arvis E. Neal. The claimants' attorney was awarded the maximum attorney's fee on the entire award, payable at the rate of $6.65 per week, for services rendered in connection with the claim. The award was affirmed on appeal to the Full Commission. In addition, Alcoa was ordered to pay the claimant's attorney an additional $100.00 fee.

On March 1, 1979, Act 215 of 1979, compiled as Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81-1332.1 (Supp.1981), became effective. Act 215 authorized lump sum attorney's fees in Workers' Compensation cases and provided in pertinent part as follows:

Section 1. The Workers' Compensation Commission is hereby authorized to approve lump sum attorney's fees for legal services rendered in respect of a claim before the Commission. Such lump sum attorney's fees are allowable notwithstanding that the award of compensation to the injured employee is to be paid on an installment basis.

Section 3. It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly that the Arkansas Supreme Court has invalidated the award of lump sum attorney's fees by the Workers' Compensation Commission where claimant was awarded compensation payable in installments. This has resulted in attorney's fees being paid in minute amounts over a long period of time, and if the claimant dies prior to the attorney's fees being fully covered from the installment payments, the attorney does not receive full compensation for his efforts. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Act, being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, shall be in full force and effect from the date of its passage and approval. 1

On March 10, 1980, claimants' attorney petitioned the Administrative Law Judge for a lump sum attorney's fee pursuant to the foregoing provisions of Act 215. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the claimants' attorney was entitled to a lump sum benefit. Alcoa appealed to the Full Commission, which affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and awarded claimants' attorney an additional $100.00 fee.

Alcoa brings this appeal, raising the primary issue of whether Act 215 of 1979 applies to attorney's fees earned and awarded prior to the 1979 Act and are still being paid at a weekly rate.

Attorney's fees in Workers' Compensation cases are provided by statute in Arkansas as a matter of public policy to enable injured workers to obtain the services of an attorney in settlement of controverted claims. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81-1332 (Supp.1981); Aluminum Company of America v. Henning, 260 Ark. 699, 543 S.W.2d 480 (1976). The amount of the attorney's fee approved by the Commission is determined, within statutorily set maximum limits, by consideration of the nature, length and complexity of the services performed by the attorney, and the benefits resulting therefrom to the compensation beneficiaries.

The amount an individual beneficiary is awarded is computed with reference to a standard annuity table. The table takes into account the life expectancy of the beneficiary and, in the case of a dependent-spouse beneficiary, the probability of remarriage. Prior to the enactment of Act 215, many instances existed where the claimant's attorney received his or her compensation installments on the same schedule benefits were paid the claimant. Since an individual claimant or beneficiary might die or remarry prior to the projected time set forth in the tables, attorneys in these instances would fail to receive full payment for their services. The language in the emergency clause of Act 215, i.e., Section 3, supra, clearly reflects that the Arkansas General Assembly enacted Act 215 to remedy this problem.

Appellant, Aluminum Company of America, contends Act 215 should apply only to attorney's fee awards made subsequent to March 1, 1979, the effective date of the Act. Appellant urges us to apply to the facts before us the general rule that statutes are to be construed as having a prospective operation, unless the purpose and intent of the Legislature to give it ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • City of Fayetteville v. Bibb, CA
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1989
    ...§ 16-22-308 provides for attorney's fees which may be assessed by the court to be "collected as costs." In Aluminum Co. of America v. Neal, 4 Ark.App. 11, 626 S.W.2d 620 (1982), we held that a change in the attorney's fees provisions of the workers' compensation act should be given retrospe......
  • Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan and Scholarship Bd. v. Luter
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1987
    ...the intent. We are decidedly of the view that Act 797 failed to make that intention clear. Appellee cites Aluminum Co. of America v. Neal, 4 Ark.App. 1, 626 S.W.2d 620 (1982) wherein the Court of Appeals construed Act 215 of 1979 (allowing lump sum attorney fees in workers compensation case......
  • Spires v. Russell
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1989
    ...Ark. 876, 310 S.W.2d 803 (1958), and Schultz v. Rector-Phillips-Morse, Inc., 261 Ark. 769, 552 S.W.2d 4 (1977). Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Neal, 4 Ark.App. 11, 626 S.W.2d 620 (1982). In passing Act 70, the General Assembly gave no hint that it intended the increased damages authorized by that A......
  • Fowler v. McHenry, CA
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 1987
    ...injury occurred prior to passage, is inappropriate. Appellant cites three cases in support of his position: Aluminum Company of America v. Neal, 4 Ark.App. 11, 626 S.W.2d 620 (1982); Alexander v. Lee Way Motor Freight, 15 Ark.App. 41, 689 S.W.2d 3 (1985); and A.O. Smith-Inland, Inc. v. Dodd......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT