Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided August 2, 2006No. 05-3425Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKaren Nelson Moore, Circuit Judge

Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion upholding the award of permanent total disability benefits to Thomas Bordeaux (“Bordeaux”) and the denial of the motion to compel, I write to express my disagreement with the majority’s reversal of the attorney-fee award. Both the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) concluded that Bordeaux was entitled to recover attorney fees, albeit on different grounds. Although the statutory scheme’s complexity may hinder identification of the proper statutory basis for a fee award, one thing is conclusive: Bordeaux is…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Scott Fischer v. sjb-p.d. Inc., a California Corporation, Dba Cedar Creek Inn Svenja Bienlefeld Michael ViliunasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  4. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Perini North River AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Jennifer Farfaras v. Citizens Bank and Trust of Chicago, a Corporation, Robert Michael, George Michael, and Nicholas TanglisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006

15 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