Legal Opinion
Miller v. IBM
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided March 24, 1995No. 94-266PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDooley, J.
Plaintiff David Miller appeals, challenging as inadequate an award of attorney’s fees, following a successful workers’ compensation claim against defendant. The Commissioner of Labor and Industry (Commissioner) awarded plaintiff attorney’s fees in accordance with Workers’ Compensation Rule 10 (WC Rule 10), which caps these fees at $35 per hour. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the hourly rate limit in WC Rule 10 is invalid. We affirm.
We first consider plaintiff’s argument that WC Rule 10 is not valid. Two statutes bear on this argument. The primary statute is 21 V.S.A. § 678(a), which…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bruntaeger v. ZellerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1986
- Morrisseau v. LegacSupreme Court of Vermont · 1962
- Hodgeman v. Jard Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1991
- Rhodes v. Industrial CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1993
- Petition of Twenty-Four Vermont UtilitiesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Katherine Hall, Appellant)Supreme Court of Vermont · 2020
- Mieras v. DyncorpNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1996
- Little v. TraynorNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Smiley v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
- Sargent v. Town of Randolph Fire DepartmentSupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.