Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc.
filed December 27, 2007, Cite as 05-17306

Ninth Circuit Sustains Rejection of Extra Fees for Worker’s Lawyer

The issue involves a worker seeking additional payment for an extra work done by his lawyer in a case which he later withdrew. The trial court rejected the claim and on appeal, the court sustained the decision.

In 2003, Quentin Tahara received a compensation for an injury he suffered in an accident in the parking lot of employer Matson Terminals Inc. At the same time, Matson sent a check to Tahara’s attorney, who returned it, stating that he was not authorized to accept payment and it should be sent instead directly to his client. Matson mailed the check again but failed to reach Tahara within the 10-day period authorized by law.

As a result of the late payment, the District Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, issued a supplementary order declaring that, (under 33 U.S.C. §914(f), part of the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act), Tahara was entitled to a late payment award equaling 20 percent of the initial compensation award.

In March 2004, Tahara filed a complaint in the district court to enforce the supplementary order.

The district court concluded that the supplementary order was legal since a late payment award is mandatory in cases where the employer’s payment of a compensation award is untimely, regardless of equitable considerations.

Tahara then asked the district court to obtain fees for work his attorney performed to secure the late payment award.

In response, Matson Terminals filed a complaint before the State of Hawaii Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) for alleged ethical violations by Tahara’s attorney relating to the additional payment.

Tahara withdrew his petition pending completion of the ODC proceedings, and then filed a second complaint to enforce the supplementary order. He requested $31,500 in attorney’s fees for 126 hours of work, including $20,000 fees incurred while Tahara’s attorney defended himself before the ODC.

The district court awarded Tahara $6,060, excluding from its award those fees incurred by counsel while defending himself before the ODC. The court also excluded from its fee calculation some of the hours spent by counsel in drafting the initial district court complaint that Tahara voluntarily dismissed..

Tahara appealed the reduced award.

The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in determining the amount of the fee award.

The Ninth Circuit court of appeals affirmed a judgment. The court sustained the following actions of the district court

• that an employee was entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred in securing a late payment award from his employer


• that award properly excluded time spent by counsel defending a disciplinary action filed by the employer in connection with the employee’s petition for fees


• that the district court had approved the attorney fee awards only for work done “before” the court

Further, the appeals court held that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding attorney fees for duplicative work.