stating that where reimbursement is ordered, “[i]t is [the claimant’s] counsel that will be affected, not [the claimant], and it will not affect [the claimant’s] compensation benefits”
How later courts described this case
- stating that where reimbursement is ordered, “[i]t is [the claimant’s] counsel that will be affected, not [the claimant], and it will not affect [the claimant’s] compensation benefits”
- noting that “our jurisprudence forbidding the return of overpayment of compensation benefits by a claimant has no rele-vanee here because litigation costs, not compensation benefits, are at issue” and that “[i]t is [cjlaimant’s counsel that .will be affected, not [cjlaimant, and it will not affect [cjlaimant’s compensation benefits”
- noting that “our jurisprudence forbidding the return of overpayment of compensation benefits by a claimant has no relevance here because litigation costs, not compensation benefits, are at issue” and that “[i]t is [c]laimant’s counsel that will be affected, not [c]laimant, and it will not affect [c]laimant’s compensation benefits”
- holding, generally, that an employer may obtain reimbursement for litigation costs that were awarded in error under section 440 of the Act
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge PELLEGRINI
concurs in the result only.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2010, the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board dated March 17, 2009, in the above captioned matter is hereby REVERSED insofar as it held Employer responsible for paying for the deposition of Dr. Bonner. Claimant’s counsel shall refund $3,000 to Employer. The Board’s order is AFFIRMED in all other respects.