Legal Opinion

City of Purcell v. Wilbanks

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided July 23, 1998No. 90134PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOPLIN, Judge:

¶ 1 Petitioner City of Purcell and the State Insurance Fund (collectively, Employer) seek review of an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court affirming the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Respondent Phil Wilbanks (Claimant) after granting Claimant’s motion to reopen on change of condition for the worse. In this proceeding, Employer asserts the Workers’ Compensation Court (1) erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees in the instant case exceeding the statutory maximum under 85 O.S. § 41(A) dictating that “attorney fees shall be…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
  2. Underside v. LathropSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
  3. Becknell v. State Industrial CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973
  4. Conrad v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  5. Pierson v. CanuppSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Payne v. ArcherCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2000
  2. Carillo v. CrownoverCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API