Pelc v. Southington Dental Associates, P.C.

Citations

• 232 Conn. App. 393

Syllabus

The law firm L Co. appealed from the judgment of the Compensation Review Board affirming the decision of the administrative law judge denying L Co.'s motions to dismiss and to stay proceedings in an attorney's fee dispute. In 2016, L Co., which had represented the claimant in the underlying workers' compensation claim from 2007 to 2018, had an arrangement approved by the workers' compensation commissioner by which the employer's workers' compensation insurer would send the claimant's weekly benefits checks, and any other workers' compensation benefits to which she was entitled, to L Co. so that L Co. could deduct an attorney's fee from the checks. In 2018, the claimant dismissed L Co. and retained the law firm W Co. In 2019, as part of a full and final settlement of the underlying workers' compensation claim, the workers' compensation commissioner approved a lump sum attor- ney's fee, which he ordered W Co. to hold in escrow pending an agreement on the allocation of the fee between L Co. and W Co. On appeal, L Co. claimed, inter alia, that the board improperly affirmed the administrative law judge's conclusion that L Co., with regard to the 2016 arrangement, lacked an enforceable award of attorney's fees pursuant to statute (§ 31- 327 (a)). Held: This court dismissed the appeal as nonjusticiable for lack of ripeness with respect to L Co.'s claim that the board improperly affirmed the administrative law judge's conclusion that the statute (§ 1-84b (b)) governing certain activi- ties of public officials or state employees after leaving office or employment could not serve as a basis for denying W Co.'s claim for attorney's fees because, as W Co.'s receipt of some portion of the attorney's fee held in escrow may never interfere with L Co.'s cognizable legal interest in its own fee, any injury to L Co. resulting from a determination regarding W Co.'s entitlement to a fee was purely hypothetical. The board did not improperly reject L Co.'s contention that the 2016 fee ap