Commonwealth Court Holds that a Workers’ Compensation Judge Has the Authority Under the Act to Address Fee Disputes Between Claimant’s Attorneys

In this case, the claimant suffered a tick bite and developed a work-related Lyme Disease injury in 2014. In 2016, a Workers’ Compensation Judge approved a 20% attorney’s fee for the claimant’s original counsel. In 2022, the claimant filed a review petition of the order approving the original counsel’s fee, noting that the original counsel had been suspended from the practice of law by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in July 2022. Subsequently, original counsel filed a petition to intervene on the review petition.

In litigation before the WCJ, the claimant testified that she decided to contact current counsel because she needed representation regarding new treatment for her disease. Prior to that, she attempted to contact original counsel on multiple occasions, but he was unresponsive.

The WCJ granted the petition, finding that the claimant wished to terminate original counsel’s representation and have current counsel represent her. The WCJ also approved the fee agreement between claimant and current counsel, finding that a 5% attorney’s fee for current counsel was fair and reasonable. As for original counsel, the WCJ found that he had been adequately compensated for the legal services he provided over the course of seven years. Original counsel appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, to which they affirmed.

Original counsel then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the WCJ violated his due process rights and abused discretion in concluding he was reasonably compensated for his services. The court dismissed original counsel’s appeal, holding that the WCJ properly exercised authority under Sections 440 and 442 of the Act in resolving the fee dispute. According to the court, the WCJ adequately balanced the claimant’s right to select an attorney of her choice with both original counsel’s and current counsel’s expectations of receiving reasonable legal fees.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2026, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com.}