Parker Stevens v. City of Fairmont, No. WC25-6605 (W.C.C.A. November 12, 2025)
Compensation Judge: Lisa B. Pearson
The employee, a police officer, was injured in a work-related motor vehicle accident on May 26, 2023. He suffered back pain and whiplash. Primary liability was admitted, but payment for the employee’s chiropractic treatment was denied on the basis that the treatment was not authorized. An administrative conference on the employee’s medical request was held on December 31, 2024. DOLI issued an order on January 8, 2025 finding that the work injury was a substantial contributing factor to the employee’s need for the disputed chiropractic treatment and that the treatment was reasonable and necessary. The self-insured employer was ordered to pay the $5,498.00 chiropractic bill and reimburse the employee $47.77 for medical mileage.
The employee’s attorney, Scott Rowland, filed a Statement of Attorney Fees and Costs on May 15, 2025, seeking $1,099.60 in contingent attorney fees under Minn. Stat. 176.081, subd. 1(a)(1) and $14,386.90 in excess fees based on time spent on the medical dispute. The self-insured employer filed an untimely objection (beyond 10 days). An Order Determining Attorney’s Fees was issued on May 29, 2025 granting the fees and noting that fees were appropriate pursuant to 176.081, subd. 1, Roraff, and Irwin as applicable. No additional findings or analysis was contained in the Order.
The self-insured employer appealed. They argued the Order was erroneous as a matter of law since the compensation judge awarded an excess fee without finding that the contingency fee was inadequate and without an analysis of the Irwin factors. The WCCA agreed.
The Court noted that statutory contingent fees are presumed to be adequate. Here, there was no explicit finding by the compensation judge that the fee was inadequate. Such a finding “cannot be implied in this case as the compensation judge did not provide any analysis or explanation for the awarded excess fees.”
The Court explained that to award excess attorney fees, a compensation judge must consider the factors set forth in Irwin, which include 1) the amount involved, 2) the time and expense necessary to prepare for trail, 3) the responsibility assumed by counsel, 4) the experience of counsel, 5) the difficulties of the issues, 6) the nature of the proof involved, and 7) the results obtained. Though the self-insured employer did not timely object to the Statement of Attorney Fees, a lack of objection does not entitle a party to automatic approval of the requested excess fees.
Since the compensation judge did not provide any specific findings or further analysis of the required Irwin factors, the WCCA could not determine the basis for the excess fee award. The WCCA vacated the Order and remanded for a determination of whether the contingent fee was adequate and consideration of each of the seven Irwin factors individually, as directed by the Supreme Court in Jurgensen.
Takeaway: We can and should object to Statements of Attorney Fees within 10 days. In the context of excess fees, compensation judges have to explain their decision and must analyze each Irwin factor individually.