Texas House Bill HB2787

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to the amount and payment of attorney's fees in certain workers' compensation cases.

Impact

The implications of HB2787 potentially reshape the landscape of workers' compensation claims in Texas. By placing the insurance carriers responsible for attorney fees when claimants win disputes, the legislation seeks to encourage more employees to pursue legitimate claims without the fear of incurring hefty legal costs. This can lead to more equitable outcomes in cases where timely access to legal recourse is critical. It does, however, introduce a process where the courts must appropriately apportion attorney's fees when a claimant only partially prevails on multiple issues, which adds a layer of complexity to litigation under this statute.

Summary

House Bill 2787 addresses the payment and amount of attorney's fees in certain workers' compensation cases. Specifically, it amends relevant sections of the Labor Code concerning how these fees are determined and allocated. The proposal stipulates that if a claimant prevails in a judicial review regarding a medical necessity dispute, the insurance carrier must cover reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred by the claimant. This marks a significant shift in the handling of legal fees in the workers' compensation arena, aiming to alleviate the financial burden on injured employees who may require legal assistance to contest insurance decisions.

Contention

There may be points of contention around the implementation and effectiveness of this bill. Critics could argue that while aiming for fairness in legal proceedings, this could also incentivize more claims being filed, leading to increased litigation within the workers' compensation system. Additionally, there are likely discussions around the parameters of what constitutes 'reasonable and necessary' fees, which can vary widely based on numerous factors such as case complexity and geographic location. The amendment also limits attorney's fees to a maximum of 25% of the claimant's recovery, which may raise concerns among legal professionals about adequate compensation for their services.