Esther Briones Parral v. The Cleaning Auth., No. Wc22-6496 (W.C.C.A, June 21, 2023)
On October 8, 2021, the employee, Esther Briones Parral, was injured in a car accident while traveling as part of her job for the employer, The Cleaning Authority. A claim petition was served and filed on May 3, 2022. The claim petition named The Cleaning Authority as the employer and Zurich North America as its insurer. The affidavit of service that accompanied the claim petition indicated that the pleading was “properly” addressed and mailed. However, the pleading was mailed using an incorrect zip code for Zurich North America.
Subsequently, because no answer or request for an extension of time to answer was made by either The Cleaning Authority or Zurich North America, the matter was set for an expedited default hearing. A notice of the expedited hearing and other notices were sent to the proper addresses for the parties by the Office of Administrative Hearings. No action was taken by Zurich North America in response to these notices. On September 1, 2022, the employee’s claim petition was considered by a compensation judge at the expedited hearing. Neither The Cleaning Authority nor Zurich North America appeared. In the Findings and Order issued on September 2, 2022, the judge found that the employee was injured while employed by The Cleaning Authority on October 8, 2021. Benefits were ordered. No specific finding was made as to whether Zurich North America was the insurer of The Cleaning Authority on the date of injury. No appeal was taken from the Findings and Order.The Employee’s attorney filed a statement of attorney’s fees on October 18, 2022, requesting an award of fees and costs. No objection was filed by The Cleaning Authority or Zurich North America, and on November 1, 2022, an order determining attorney fees was served and filed. No appeal was taken from the attorney fee order.
On November 30, 2022, Zurich North America filed a petition to set aside default awards with this court, on the basis that it did not provide workers’ compensation liability coverage to The Cleaning Authority on October 8, 2021. Zurich North America requests that this court vacate the default judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. In the alternative, Zurich North America requests this court vacate the default award and the order determining attorney fees pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.461(a).
The WCCA noted that in its petition to vacate, Zurich North America filed an affidavit asserting that the claim petition was mailed to an incorrect zip code and was either not received or received in an untimely manner. Minn. Stat. § 176.285 and case law have explicitly adopted the requirement that a mailing must be “properly addressed” to be effective service. According to the WCCA, if the claim petition was not properly served on Zurich North America, the question arises whether either the court below or WCCA has jurisdiction to make any order requiring Zurich North America to pay benefits.
The WCCA emphasized that to assess the question of jurisdiction, factual determinations must be made regarding proper service of the claim petition and whether Zurich North America provided workers’ compensation liability coverage for The Cleaning Authority on October 8, 2021. Further, the WCCA noted that fact-finding is also required to determine whether Zurich North America can show that it has satisfied the requirements for vacation of a default judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 (a) through (f). Thus, the WCCA concluded that the evaluation of the petition to set aside a default award requires factual determinations of Zurich North America’s processes, procedures, and the basis for its failure to advise the parties and the court that it did not provide workers’ compensation liability coverage for The Cleaning Authority until November 2022.
All in all, the WCCA noted that it is not the function of WCCA to make factual findings. WCCA reasoned that given Zurich North America’s assertions that it was improperly served, as well as the ambiguity of the record, pleadings, and facts of the case, the case was referred back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for the necessary factual determination