State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links

Smith v. Harrow Industries, Inc.

CASE NO. 4662 CRB-8-03-4

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MARCH 31, 2004

ALBERT J. SMITH

CLAIMANT

v.

HARROW INDUSTRIES, INC.

EMPLOYER

APPEARANCES:

This appeal concerned a fee dispute between an attorney and law firm who represented the claimant in this matter. Interested Party, Appellant, Watstein & Watstein, P.C., was represented by Max Brunswick, Esq., 12 Trumbull Street, New Haven, CT 06511.

Interested Party, Appellee, Daniel B. Scott, Esq. was represented by David S. Rintoul, Esq., Brown, Paindiris & Scott, 2252 Main Street, Glastonbury, CT 06033.

This Petition for Review from the March 26, 2003, Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard December 19, 2003, before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Howard H. Belkin and Charles F. Senich.

OPINION

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. An interested party, Watstein & Watstein, P.C., has appealed from the March 26, 2003, Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District. We affirm the decision of the trial commissioner.

The pertinent facts are as follows. Attorney Daniel Scott was an associate of the law firm Watstein & Watstein, P.C. through May 9, 2002. When Attorney Scott left the firm of Watstein & Watstein, P.C., several clients chose to remain with Attorney Scott as opposed to remaining with Watstein & Watstein, P.C. This dispute arose out of the distribution of legal fees between Attorney Scott and Watstein & Watstein, P.C. The trial commissioner found that he had jurisdiction to resolve fee disputes between the attorneys in this case and set forth the matter for a formal hearing in order to determine the fee allocation. Watstein & Watstein, P.C. have appealed this decision. It argues the trial commissioner does not have jurisdiction to make the determination of fee division in this case.

The issue raised in this appeal is identical to the issue raised in Smith v. SRS Communications Corp., 4661 CRB-8-03-4 (March 31, 2004). We affirm the trial commissioner here for the same reasons set forth in that case.

Therefore, we affirm the March 26, 2003, Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District.

Commissioners Howard H. Belkin and Charles F. Senich concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: May 3, 2004

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2004/4662crb.htm

Workers’ Compensation Commission Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and Website Accessibility

State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links