A. In proceedings before the commission in which an attorney employed by the claimant has rendered services reasonably necessary in processing the claim, the commission shall, upon application filed by the attorney or the claimant prior to a final disposition of the case, set a reasonable attorney's fee and shall provide for the payment thereof from the award, in installments or otherwise, as the commission determines proper in view of the award made, and shall further provide for the payment of the attorney's fee direct to the attorney. The commission shall charge the amount of the payment against the award to the claimant.
B. The attorney's fee provided for in subsection A shall be not more than twenty-five per cent up to ten years from the date of the award. In cases involving solely loss of earning capacity, the maximum shall be twenty-five per cent up to five years from the date of the final award. When the payment of the award to the claimant is made in installments, or in other than a lump sum manner, in no event may an amount in excess of twenty-five per cent of any one such installment payment be withheld for the attorney's fee.
C. The reasonableness of the attorney's fee set pursuant to subsection A shall be reviewable upon the application of the claimant or the attorney in the same manner as other awards of the commission.
Notes of Decisions
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Mercer, 614 P.2d 816 (Ariz. 1980).
· cites it 8× “Ryan requested the Industrial Commission of Arizona to set Respondent's attorney's fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1069. XIII. "Respondent submitted to the Industrial Commission of Arizona a statement reflecting that he had expended 79.”
Timmons v. Indus. Comm'n, 316 P.2d 935 (Ariz. 1957).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 23-1069 (formerly chapter 112, Laws 1953) provides for the Commission, upon application' of the attorney or claimant, to fix a “reasonable attorney’s fee” for such legal services as may be “reasonably necessary to the processing of the claim:” We hold the Commission’s…”
Martin v. Indus. Comm'n, 587 P.2d 1193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Further, we think it is equally evident that it is not a denial of due process to fail to give prior notice to an applicant of the right to have counsel present to participate in a scheduled hearing.”
Pettinato v. Indus. Comm'n, 698 P.2d 746 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1069, the Industrial Commission may fix a reasonable contingent fee where the claimant and his attorney have not agreed upon one and the attorney or claimant applies to the Commission.”
Lee v. Indus. Comm'n, 212 P.3d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 14× “" ¶ 28 Our legislature no doubt had similar public policy concerns in mind when it adopted A.R.S. § 23-1069. When a claimant in a worker's compensation case or the claimant's attorney files an application for attorney's fees with the Industrial Commission prior to final…”
Sanchez v. Indus. Comm'n, 672 P.2d 183 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The only specific authority granted to the Industrial Commission to set reasonable attorneys’ fees is that contained in A.R.S. § 23-1069 which provides: “A. In proceedings before the commission in which an attorney employed by the claimant has rendered services reasonably…”
McCluskey v. Indus. Comm'n, 296 P.2d 443 (Ariz. 1956).
“the attorney or the claimant, to be payable out of an Industrial Commission award pursuant to Chapter 112, Laws 1953 (now Section 23-1069, A.R.S. 1956), is the Commission bound by the terms of a prior agreement between the attorney and the claimant ? Before addressing ourselves…”
Green v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 589 P.2d 453 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 23-1069. DES used the gross amount of the award to calculate appellant’s income although he actually receives only % of it.”
In re Rubenstein, 875 P.2d 783 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The contingency fee agreement entered into between Rubenstein and Client A provided that Rubenstein would take one-third of “the amount recovered” by Rubenstein, despite the fact that A.R.S. § 23-1069 limits attorney’s fees in workers’ compensation matters to 25%.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1069(A) — 1 case
Lee v. Indus. Comm'n, 212 P.3d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“" ¶ 28 Our legislature no doubt had similar public policy concerns in mind when it adopted A.R.S. § 23-1069. When a claimant in a worker's compensation case or the claimant's attorney files an application for attorney's fees with the Industrial Commission prior to final…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1069(B) — 1 case
Lee v. Indus. Comm'n, 212 P.3d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“" ¶ 28 Our legislature no doubt had similar public policy concerns in mind when it adopted A.R.S. § 23-1069. When a claimant in a worker's compensation case or the claimant's attorney files an application for attorney's fees with the Industrial Commission prior to final…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.