 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flesner v. Lincoln Poultry8/23/2005
led to obtain a reduction in the award. Pursuant to § 48-125, Flesner is thus entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees for his defense of Cincinnati's cross-appeal to the review panel, and the review panel erred in failing to award such fees.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that Cincinnati bore liability for all of Flesner's compensable injuries and in giving Stricklett's 50-percent loss of earning capacity report the rebuttable presumption of correctness. We further find that the trial court did not err in awarding Flesner future medical expenses. As for Flesner's cross-appeal, the review panel did not err in not assessing an attorney fee for the costs of Flesner's appeal to that court. However, the review panel did err in failing to award Flesner attorney fees for Cincinnati's cross-appeal to the review panel, because there was no reduction in Flesner's award. Accordingly, we affirm the review panel's decision, but remand the cause to the review panel with instructions to award attorney fees to Flesner for Cincinnati's cross-appeal.
Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded with directions.
|