EMPLOYMENT LAW
Clara Nieman
In State, Department of Corrections v. Wozniak, 491 P.3d 1081 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that an agency did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees as both a lump sum based on the attorney’s past work and ongoing statutory minimum fees based on future workers’ compensation benefits. (Id. at 1088). Wozniak, an Alaska corrections officer, was injured on the job, and the State disputed that he was permanently and totally disabled before ultimately conceding his disability status. (Id. at 1082). However, the parties were unable to agree on the amount of attorneys’ fees due to Wozniak’s attorney. (Id. at 1083). The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board awarded attorneys’ fees two parts: a lump sum for actual hours billed during the dispute, and ongoing statutory minimum attorneys’ fees for the duration of Wozniak’s disability. (Id. at 1083–84). The State appealed to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission, contending that the fee award was unreasonable. (Id. at 1084). The Commission affirmed the Board’s decision, and the State again appealed. (Id. at 1084–85). The supreme court affirmed the Commission’s decision, holding that the award of attorneys’ fees was not manifestly unreasonable given the amount of work performed by the attorney and the significant disability benefits Wozniak ultimately received. (Id. at 1086–87). Although the supreme court did not adopt all of the Commission’s reasoning, it noted that an award of attorneys’ fees above the statutory minimum was not unreasonable when considering the facts of the case and the objectives of the attorneys’ fee statute. (Id. at 1087). Affirming the Commission’s decision, the supreme court held that an agency did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees as both a lump sum based on the attorney’s past work and ongoing statutory minimum fees based on future workers’ compensation benefits. (Id. at 1088).
