General Motors Corp. v. Morgan

• Decision Date: 09 December 1971
• Citation: General Motors Corp. v. Morgan, 286 A.2d 759 (Del. Super. 1971)
• Parties: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Employer-Appellant, v. Frank MORGAN, Claimant-Appellee.
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

Page 759

286 A.2d 759

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Employer-Appellant, v.Frank MORGAN, Claimant-Appellee.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Dec. 9, 1971.

Max S. Bell, Jr., Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, for employer-appellant.

Oliver V. Suddard, Wilmington, for claimant-appellee.

OPINION

O'HARA, Judge.

This is an appeal from a determination of the Industrial Accident Board(Board) dated November 18, 1971, pertaining to an award of attorney fees pursuant to 19 Del.C. § 2127.Frank Morgan(claimant) sought and was awarded benefits for an occupational disease arising in the course of his employment with General Motors Corporation(GM).His claim was contested by GM and during the pendency of proceedings before the Board, claimant was represented by Oliver V. Suddard, Esq.The principal issues in the case were heard on December 12, 1970 and on March 4, 1970 a general decision on attorney fees was rendered.That decision states as follows:

'It is further awarded and adjudged by the Industrial Accident Board of the State of Delaware this Fourth day of March, 1970 that General Motors Corporation shall pay the reasonable attorneys fees in the amount of $1,687.50 plus 30% Of the unpaid medical bills and 30% Of transportation.'

A controversy arose as to the import of 'unpaid medical bills' and the matter was resubmitted to the Board.Its decision, dated November 18, 1970 was to the effect that payments advanced by Blue Cross for claimant's medical care, pursuant to a private insurance contract, were to be considered part of the compensation award for the purpose of assessing attorneys fees.This legal conclusion was premised upon the Board's factual finding that the effect of claimant's judgment requiring GM to reimburse Blue Cross relieved claimant of his duty of indemnification.GM challenges the latter determination on the facts and the law.

Preliminarily, it should be noted that this Court's function on appeal from the Board is to determine whether there was substantial competent evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Board.Air Mod Corporation v. Newton, 215 A.2d 434(Del.Supr.1965);Johnson v. Chrysler Corporation, 213 A.2d 64(Del.Supr.1965).This Court will not reverse the Board in a workman's compensation case, where there is such evidence to support the Board's findings of fact and where there has been no error of law.Dallachiesa v. General Motors Corporation, 1 Storey 130, 140 A.2d 137(1958).

Under 19 Del.C. § 2127, the statutory right to an attorney's allowance in workman's compensation cases is based upon a percentage of the award.Section 2127 states:

'(a) A reasonable attorney's fee is an amount not to exceed 30% Of the award or $2250, whichever is smaller, shall be allowed by the Board to an employee awarded compensation under this chapter and Chapter 23, and taxed as costs against a party.'

GM's initial argument is that the Board's November, 1970 opinion with respect to attorney fees is without legal effect as it went beyond the Board's statutory authorization under 19 Del.C. § 2349.Under § 2349 all orders of the Board are final and res judicata unless appealed from within 20 days.Taylor v. Hatzel & Buehler, 258 A.2d 905(Del.Supr.1969).Since no appeal was made within the time set by statute, GM challenges the Board's power to depart from the allegedly unambiguous language of its March decision and to substitute claimant's 'medical liability' for 'unpaid medical bills' as a more generous computation of allowable attorney fees.The Court disagrees with this contention.

Private insurance plans, such as offered by Blue Cross, are such a pervasive influence in the scheme of medical compensation and of such common knowledge to those experienced in these matters that this Court must presume that the Board was aware of Blue Cross and its policy of advancing coverage...