Nebraska Court of Appeals (J. Moore) sidesteps disputed fee between attorneys handling a worker compensation case, holding that the Nebraska Worker Compensation did not have subject matter jurisdiction to divide attorney fee between current and terminated counsel Wells v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 14 Neb. App. 384 Filed December 27, 2005. No. A-05-202. Plaintiff filed a worker compensation court claim nearly 6 years after his accident against employer. Plaintiff fired counsel and retained new counsel whose exhibits were nearly all the ones former counsel had obtained. Shortly after termination the trial judge ordered that former counsel would have a lien in a to be determined amount. The case went to trial resulting in a fee to the succeeding counsel of $6100. Former counsel and current counsel could not agree to a fee so former counsel asked for a portion of the $6100 fee. The trial judge made a 'guesstimate' that former counsel was entitled to about a fourth of the fee. The review panel reversed, holding that under Baker v Zikas, the fired counsel gets only the value of his work, ie time x hourly rate plus expenses. A second time the trial court awarded the identical amount to fired counsel. Again the review panel reversed. This time however Plaintiff's current counsel appealed to the court of appeals and former counsel cross-appealed. Current counsel argued former counsel gets nothing because he failed to prove the value, reasonableness and necessity of his work. Former counsel cross appealed arguing the 1/4 amount of $6100 was correct Court of Appeals dismisses the action in its entired and orders the former counsel's motiong to grab a portion of the overall attorney fee dismissed as well:

"The court of appeals (cf Kaiman v. Mercy Midlands) has previously interpreted § 48-108 as limiting the compensation court's regulation and disbursements matters to those which arise between the injured worker and the attorney representing the injured worker. "

Moreover) § 48-162.03(1) (Reissue 2004) allows only parties to worker compensation cases motion practice there.

the compensation court did not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the Rehm law firm and Shasteen over the division of the attorney fee awarded to Wells in his claim before the compensation court. Nebraska case law interprets § 48-108 as limiting the compensation court's regulation and disbursements matters to those which arise between the injured worker and the attorney representing the injured worker. The dispute in the present case arose not between Wells and Shasteen, but between the Rehm law firm and Shasteen. Further, § 48-162.03(1) grants the compensation court the authority to hear motions brought only by parties to a suit or proceeding before the court. The Rehm law firm is not a party to a proceeding before the compensation court, Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the present appeal and cross-appeal and must dismiss both the appeal and the cross-appeal.