The case of Tracia Carter-Shepherd v. Royal Furniture Company and State of Alabama involved a constitutional challenge to key provisions of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Background

Tracia Carter-Shepherd (“the employee”) filed a workers’ compensation claim against her employer, Royal Furniture Company. The parties eventually reached a settlement agreement. The employee’s ultimate goal was not just to secure the settlement, but to use the case as a vehicle to challenge state laws she believed unfairly limited her and her attorney.

The Challenge: Statutory Fee Cap

After the parties settled the claim, the employee filed a motion with the trial court seeking to have two provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act declared unconstitutional:

1. The Attorney’s Fee Cap (§ 25-5-90): This section caps the attorney’s fee for the employee’s lawyer at 15% of the compensation awarded or paid. Carter-Shepherd sought to have this limit removed to allow her attorney to receive a higher fee (16% of the settlement).
2. The Nonseverability Clause (§ 25-5-17): This provision states that if any part of the Act is found to be unconstitutional, the entire Act is invalidated.

The Employee’s Arguments

The employee argued that the 15% fee cap was unconstitutional because it:

1. Violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by allowing the Legislature to regulate attorney compensation, which she argued is a power reserved for the Judicial branch.
2. Violated her right to contract privately for legal representation.

She further argued that the nonseverability clause violated her First Amendment right to petition the government, as the risk of invalidating the entire Workers’ Compensation system could discourage legitimate constitutional challenges.

The Appellate Decision

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, rejecting the employee’s constitutional challenges.

1. The Attorney’s Fee Cap: The Court held that the employee failed to carry her burden of proving the fee cap was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Legislature has long exercised its police power to regulate fees in workers’ compensation matters. It noted that courts still retain discretion to award fees up to the statutory cap, and that the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct allow for attorney-fee limits imposed by law.  The Court explicitly differentiated Alabama’s constitution from those in states like Utah and Minnesota, which grant their courts exclusive authority over attorney regulation.
2. The Nonseverability Clause: Because the Court upheld the constitutionality of the fee cap, there was no constitutional violation to trigger the nonseverability clause. Therefore, the Court found the employee’s challenge to the nonseverability clause moot.

In short, the Court of Civil Appeals preserved the statutory framework of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act, holding that the 15% cap on claimant attorney’s fees remains valid.