FIRST DIVISION
DOYLE, C. J.,
PHIPPS, P. J, and BOGGS, J.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
September 22, 2015
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A15A1467. CRUZ et al. v. PAREDES. DO-071
DOYLE, Chief Judge.
We granted the application for discretionary appeal filed by Ruben J. Cruz and
James Janarious, former counsel for the claimant (hereinafter “former counsel”) in
this workers’ compensation case. Former counsel appeal the superior court’s order
reversing the decision of the appellate division of the State Board of Workers’
Compensation (“the Board”), which had adopted the decision of the administrative
law judge (“ALJ”) approving the attorney fee contract between the claimant and his
former counsel. Former counsel contend that the superior court applied the wrong
standard of review and erroneously interpreted the attorney fee contract. For the
reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
The undisputed facts show that on February 17, 2011, Andres Paredes suffered
a work-related back injury. Four weeks later, on March 19, 2011, Paredes signed an
attorney fee contract with former counsel. While represented by former counsel,
Paredes was awarded ongoing total temporary disability benefits.
On December 19, 2013, Paredes terminated former counsel and retained new
counsel. On January 7, 2014, former counsel filed an attorney lien pursuant to Board
Rule 108 (e), seeking to recover fees in the amount of $35,207. On January 9, 2014,
former counsel filed an attorney fee approval form pursuant to Board Rule 108 (a).
Paredes objected, maintaining that the request for attorney fee approval was untimely
and therefore contractually barred.
The ALJ approved the fee contract, “find[ing] that the record substantiates that
the contingency provided for in the attorney’s fee contract was met” and that
“[d]uring [f]ormer [c]ounsel’s representation and as a result of [their] efforts[,]
income benefits were commenced.” The ALJ awarded former counsel 25 percent of
Paredes’s income benefits beginning January 9, 2014, for a period not to exceed 350
weeks. Paredes appealed, and the Board affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s decision,
finding that the ALJ’s decision was supported by a preponderance of competent and
credible evidence. Paredes appealed to the superior court, which reversed the Board’s
2
decision, concluding that former counsel was not entitled to collect fees because they
were terminated prior to submitting their attorney fee approval form. Former counsel
filed an application for discretionary appeal, which this Court granted.
1. Former counsel argues that the trial court erred by applying a de novo
standard of review rather than an “any evidence” standard, which resulted in the
disregard of the Board’s statutorily conferred authority to exercise discretion in
approving attorney fee contracts.
When reviewing a workers’ compensation ruling, both the
appellate court and the superior court must construe the evidence in the
light most favorable to the party prevailing before the Appellate
Division of the Board, and must affirm findings of fact as to disputed
evidence if they are supported by any evidence. Both levels of court
apply a de novo standard of review when considering the Appellate
Division’s application of law to the facts.1
“The question of whether the superior court applied the correct legal standard in
evaluating the evidence . . . is one of law, which we review de novo.”2
1
Monk v. Parker, 331 Ga. App. 736, 739 (1) (771 SE2d 424) (2015), citing Ray Bell
Constr. Co. v. King, 281 Ga. 853, 854 (642 SE2d 841) (2007).
2
(Punctuation omitted.) Flores v. Keener, 302 Ga. App. 275, 276 (690 SE2d 903)
(2010).
3
Here, the superior court specifically found that “[t]his is a case of
straightforward contract interpretation[,] and there is no factual dispute between the
parties.” “[A]n issue of contract construction is usually a question of law for the court
to resolve and, as such, it is subject to de novo review.”3 Accordingly, this
enumeration is without merit.
2. Former counsel further contend that pretermitting whether the superior court
applied the proper standard of review, the court erred by reversing the Board’s award
of attorney fees.
The ALJ determined that the fee contract was valid, the contingency provided
in the attorney fee contract was met, and former counsels’ representation resulted in
the commencement of income benefits for the claimant, and the Board agreed with
the ALJ’s findings. Nonetheless, the superior court found the findings contrary to
law, pursuant to OCGA § 34-9-105 (c) (5).4
3
(Emphasis omitted.) Atlanta Emergency Svcs., LLC v. Clark, 328 Ga. App. 9, 11
(1) (761 SE2d 437) (2014).
4
OCGA § 34-9-105 (c) authorizes the superior court to set aside the Board’s award
if its members acted in excess of their powers, the decision was procured by fraud, the facts
do not support the decision, there is insufficient competent evidence to warrant its
decision, or the decision is contrary to law.
4
The fee agreement contained the following provision: “I understand that your
hourly rate is $200[]. It is agreed that you can also charge and be paid for services
rendered, [25] percent . . . of the gross weekly indemnity benefits, . . . or in quantum
meruit, which ever is greater, prior to termination of this contract by either party.”
The superior court interpreted this clause to preclude former counsel from collecting
attorney fees because Paredes dismissed them before they made a claim for fees
before the Board.
The cardinal rule of contract construction is to ascertain the
intention of the parties. If the terms of a contract are plain and
unambiguous, the contractual terms alone determine the parties’ intent.
A dictionary can supply the plain and ordinary meaning of a term, but
a dictionary does not always provide a complete answer. If a term used
in a contract is of uncertain meaning and may be fairly understood in
more ways than one, it is ambiguous, and we apply the rules of contract
construction in an effort to resolve the ambiguity. The proper
construction of a contract is a question of law for a court to determine.5
“An ambiguity is defined as duplicity, indistinctness, an uncertainty of meaning or
expression used in a written instrument, and also signifies of doubtful or uncertain
5
(Punctuation omitted.) Carnett’s Properties, LLC v. Jowayne, LLC, 331 Ga. App.
292, 294 (771 SE2d 5) (2015).
5
nature; wanting clearness or definiteness; difficult to comprehend or distinguish; of
doubtful purport; open to various interpretations.”6
Here, the trial court specifically found that the provision at issue was “plain and
unambiguous.” We disagree. By concluding that former counsel were not entitled to
payment in this case because they failed to get paid before Paredes terminated them,
the trial court found that the “prior to termination of this contract by either party”
limitation in the parties’ fee agreement modified the phrase “you can . . . charge and
be paid.” One could also, however, reasonably construe the limitation to modify the
term “for services rendered,” so that former counsels’ fee demand could be approved
for any services rendered before termination by Paredes.
Thus, the trial court erred by ruling that the fee agreement was plain and
unambiguous. In light of the ambiguity, the trial court should have applied the
pertinent rules of contract construction, including consideration of extrinsic evidence
6
(Punctuation omitted.) Kammerer Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. PLH Sandy
Springs, LLC, 319 Ga. App. 393, 396 (1) (740 SE2d 635) (2012), overruled on other
grounds by Artson, LLC v. Hudson, 322 Ga. App. 859, 862, n. 1 (747 SE2d 68) (2013).
6
and parol evidence, as permitted.7 We therefore remand this case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.8
Judgment reversed and case remanded. Phipps, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur.
7
See Empire Distrib., Inc. v. George L. Smith II Georgia World Congress Center
Auth., 235 Ga. App. 742, 744 (509 SE2d 650) (1998).
8
See Amah v. Whitefield Academy, Inc., 331 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) (770 SE2d 650)
(2015) (remanding to trial court to resolve ambiguity in statute); Eells v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 324 Ga. App. 901, 906 (2) (752 SE2d 70) (2013).
7