Roderick Elzie v. Univ. of Minn., No. WC25-6603 (WCCA, November 18, 2025)
The employee, Roderick Elzie, settled his workers’ compensation claim against two separate employers, the University of Minnesota and Vogt Heating and Air conditioning. Each employer agreed to pay $67,000.00 to the employee for a total payment of $134,000.00. An award was issued on December 5, 2023 with payment being due of December 19, 2023. The payment from University of Minnesota was received by employee’s attorney on January 3, 2024.
University of Minnesota is a self-insured employer with claims administrated with Sedgwick and has a multi-level approval process when payment exceeds a certain level. The payment of $67,000.00 did exceed that level. The process to approve payment is called “cash call.” The process starts with Sedgwick contacting designated person at the employer. Both review and approve the payment. After that, another person with the employer review the proposed payment and provide final approval. Upon final approval, Sedgwick waits for confirmation of receipt of funds. After they confirm that the funds are available, Sedgwick issues the check.
In this case, the Sedgwick adjuster received the award on December 5, 2023 and contacted the employer contact person on December 13, 2023. The employer specialist approved payment on December 14, 2023. The employer specialist did not know about the deadline of December 19, 2023 and did not notify the supervisor right away and only emailed his supervisor on December 18, 2023. The supervisor approved the payment on December 19, 2023 and informed Sedgwick examiner that same day. The Sedgwick adjuster needed also to confirm that the funds are available and was told that the funds would not be available until December 21, 2023. Thus, the check was only issued on December 22, 2023.
The employee brought a claim petition seeking penalties under Minn. Stat 176.225, subds. 1(2) and 5 for delayed payment. A hearing was held on March 19, 2025. At hearing, the parties did not dispute that the payment was late. A finding and order was issued in April of 2025 granting the employee a $2,500.00 penalty under Minn. Stat. 176.225 subd. 1(2) and denying the penalty under Minn. Stat. 176. 225 subd. 5. The employee appealed.
First of all, the employee argued that under Minn. Stat. § 176.225, subd. 1(2), the judge abused his discretion in awarding only $2,500 in penalties against the employer. They argued that the 3 day delay resulted in financial hardship and a higher a award was justifiable. Under Minn. Stat. § 176.225, subd. 1, a compensation judge “shall award compensation, in addition to the total amount of compensation award, of up to 30 percent of that total amount” when the employer has “unreasonably or vexatiously delayed payment.” This statute gives the compensation judge the discretion to determine whether the delay in payment was unreasonable.
The WCCA noted that minimally late payments typically resulted in penalties at the lower range.
In addition, the employee argued that the compensation judge failed to follow Minn. R. 5220.2760, subp. 2. That required an award on 6% penalty. The WCCA disagreed and noted that this penalty is assessed by the division not the compensation judge.
Finally, the employee appealed the compensation judge’s decision to deny any penalties under Minn. Stat. § 176.225, subd. 5. Minn. Stat. § 176.225, subd. 5, stands for an additional 25% penalty “Where the employer is guilty of inexcusable delay in making payments.” The WCCA did note that the statute did not have a general definition of “inexcusable delay.” The WCCA did that a compensation judge’s determination that there was “unreasonable delay” does not necessarily demonstrate an inexcusable delay. The WCCA did not that the caselaw supports that late payments arising from workload and delays resulting from approval process to be excusable delays and does not trigger an award on Minn. Stat. § 176.225, subd. 5. Penalties. As such, the WCCA did find in this case that the adjusters work load and bank processing times to be excusable delay. All in all, the WCCA affirmed the compensation judge’s decision.