Legal Opinion

Pitt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 29, 1993No. 983 C.D. 1992PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOYLE, Judge.

This is an appeal1 by Larry Pitt, Esquire, from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming a referee’s decision which denied him an award for counsel fees.

The relevant facts are as follows. Pitt represented Arnold McEachin (Claimant) in a workmen’s compensation matter from September 1988 to April 1990. Claimant signed a contingent fee agreement providing that Pitt would receive 20% of all awarded compensation. In April, 1990, Claimant discharged Pitt and chose a new attorney, Anthony Witlin.

In January 1991, the referee granted Claimant’s claim petition…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. General Electric Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Riley Stoker Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Pittsburgh Moose Lodge 46 v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Manolovich v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Larry Pitt & Associates v. LongCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Hendricks v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Wells v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Nebraska Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Sellers v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

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

Powered by the Exa API