## Facts

- Victor Gonzalez worked for LFE Corporation as a shipper/receiver starting in January 1989.
- Around March 5, 1990, Gonzalez suffered a shoulder injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
- Gonzalez had work absences and was terminated in May 1990 for excessive absences.
- On July 20, 1990, Gonzalez filed a claim seeking temporary total disability benefits from March 6, 1990 forward and payment of medical expenses; the insurer denied liability.
- After a § 10A conference in April 1991, an administrative judge denied the claim; Gonzalez appealed for a de novo hearing.
- At the de novo hearing, the administrative judge found an industrial injury occurred but concluded Gonzalez did not prove the claimed incapacity period was causally related to the injury.
- The administrative judge also found the claimed benefit period overlapped with time Gonzalez was working and with periods he received unemployment compensation.
- The administrative judge awarded no weekly disability compensation and no medical benefits (no evidence of unpaid medical bills), and instead reserved Gonzalez’s rights to pursue a properly supported claim later.
- Gonzalez appealed only the denial of attorney’s fees; the Reviewing Board denied fees because he obtained no award and did not prevent a discontinuance of benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee “prevails” for purposes of statutory attorney’s fees under G.L. c. 152, § 13A when the administrative judge finds an industrial injury but awards no weekly or medical benefits and merely reserves rights.

## Decision

- The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the Reviewing Board.
- The court held Gonzalez did not “prevail” because the proceeding resulted in no compensation award, no medical payment order, and no preservation of ongoing benefits from discontinuance.
- A favorable factual finding of industrial injury, without an accompanying award or preserved benefit, did not trigger entitlement to attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- Under G.L. c. 152, § 13A, attorney’s fees generally require that the employee prevail by obtaining a tangible benefit in the proceeding, such as an award of compensation/medical benefits or preventing loss of existing benefits.
- A finding that an industrial injury occurred is not, by itself, “prevailing” when it produces no present entitlement to benefits.
- Reserving an employee’s rights for possible future proceedings does not constitute success in the current proceeding for fee-shifting purposes.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court concluded that an employee is not a prevailing party entitled to workers’ compensation attorney’s fees when the administrative judge finds an industrial injury but awards no weekly or medical benefits and only reserves the employee’s rights to pursue a later, properly supported claim.


Case of Gonzalez, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 39, 668 N.E.2d 373 (1996)