A drawn-out dispute between two law firms over a six-figure attorney fee in a workers’ compensation case reached a turning point on May 6, when the Connecticut Appellate Court ruled that the Workers’ Compensation Commission - not the state’s courts - has the final say on how the fee should be divided.
The case, Pelc v. Southington Dental Associates, P.C., centered around a $1,037,570 settlement awarded to Francesca Pelc, a dental assistant injured at work in 2006. The disagreement was over the $185,247 in attorney fees approved as part of that settlement, which had been sitting in escrow while the two firms - Levine & Levine and Walker, Feigenbaum & Cantarella - battled over who gets what.
Levine & Levine, which represented Pelc for over a decade, argued that it had a binding fee agreement from 2016, previously signed off at an informal hearing by Commissioner Nancy Salerno. That arrangement let the firm deduct its fee directly from Pelc’s weekly workers’ comp checks. The firm claimed this arrangement was effectively an “award” under Connecticut law and couldn’t be revisited.
But the court disagreed.
It ruled that the 2016 arrangement wasn’t a fee “award” enforceable in court because it didn’t meet the criteria set out in Section 31-327(a) of Connecticut’s workers’ compensation statute. That section applies only when the employer or insurer is responsible for paying attorney fees. In this case, Pelc herself - not her employer’s insurer, The Hartford - was paying the fee, even though the checks passed through the firm.
In other words, having the insurer mail checks to Levine & Levine for convenience didn’t change the fact that Pelc, not the insurer, was footing the bill.
The decision also addressed an ethics challenge Levine & Levine raised against the successor firm. The claim focused on the involvement of John Cantarella, Pelc’s new attorney, whose law partner is a recently retired commissioner who once presided over Pelc’s case. Levine & Levine argued that this violated state ethics rules that limit what former public officials can do after leaving office.
But the court said that issue wasn’t ready for review. Since the $185,247 in fees hadn’t yet been split between the two firms, there was no actual harm - and thus, no current legal controversy to decide.
Levine & Levine also tried to disqualify the entire Workers’ Compensation Commission from hearing the case, saying its involvement would be biased. The court rejected that too, relying on the legal doctrine of necessity, which says a body can decide a matter if it’s the only authority legally allowed to do so - even if there’s an alleged conflict.
And when Levine & Levine argued it had been denied a fair hearing - because its exhibits weren’t admitted and the decision was based mostly on documents the judge took notice of - the court said that, even if that was an error, it wouldn’t have changed the result. The ruling turned on legal interpretation, not disputed facts.
For insurance professionals, especially those involved in workers’ comp claims, this case is a reminder that fee disputes between attorneys remain firmly within the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Prior fee approvals, even ones made during earlier informal hearings, don’t become final or enforceable unless they meet very specific conditions - chiefly, that the employer or insurer is actually paying the fee.
It’s also a useful illustration of how successor counsel transitions can turn contentious, and of the procedural boundaries involved when disputes arise over fees, ethics, or tribunal authority.
Although no insurance policy terms were discussed, The Hartford - the insurer for Pelc’s employer - was part of the case’s factual background. It was directed to route weekly benefits through Levine & Levine, but never assumed any liability for attorney fees.
With the Appellate Court’s May 6 ruling upholding the Commission’s authority, the escrowed funds can now be allocated under the Commission’s watch. While the matter of who gets what remains pending, one thing is clear: attorney fee arrangements in workers’ comp cases must follow the statutory script if they’re to hold up.
