## Facts

- Pat Metevier injured her elbow at work at Wal-Mart in November 1995.
- Wal-Mart’s workers’ compensation carrier (AIG) denied benefits.
- After a Department of Labor hearing, benefits were denied for failure to prove causation.
- Metevier appealed to the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board and hired attorney James E. Townsend about four months before the board hearing; he had more than twenty-five years of experience.
- The board ruled Metevier was entitled to payment of medical bills and temporary total disability benefits for December 21, 1995, through February 21, 1996.
- Townsend sought attorney’s fees of $3,670.90 for 20.5 hours at $175/hour; AIG objected and proposed 10 hours at $125/hour.
- The board approved 20.5 hours but reduced the hourly rate to $130, citing the “normal average of cases” and stating an approved rate range of $120–$150/hour.
- The board denied Metevier’s motion for reconsideration of the fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the board applied the correct statutory standard under RSA 281-A:44, I when setting attorney’s fees, including consideration of counsel’s standing and skill and the claimant’s success.
2. Whether the board had authority to impose a general “range of approved rates” for attorney’s fees absent a fee schedule adopted by the commissioner through rulemaking.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire vacated the board’s attorney’s fee determination and remanded.
- The court held the board’s decision did not show it considered the attorney’s standing and skill as required by RSA 281-A:44, I.
- The court held the board lacked authority to create and apply a de facto fee schedule or rate range when the statute assigns fee-schedule rulemaking to the commissioner.

## Legal Principles

- Under RSA 281-A:44, I, fee awards must be reasonable and must reflect consideration of relevant factors, including the attorney’s standing and skill and the results obtained.
- The board must indicate in its written decision that it considered required statutory factors when determining counsel fees.
- The board may not substitute an internal “approved rate range” for a case-specific reasonableness analysis.
- Authority to adopt a schedule of reasonable fees by rule rests with the commissioner, not the Compensation Appeals Board.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the reduced hourly-rate fee award because the board neither documented consideration of counsel’s standing and skill nor had authority to apply an informal rate range in place of the statutory, case-specific reasonableness inquiry.


Appeal of Metevier, 767 A.2d 427 (N.H. 2001)