In March 2005, the Employee, Daniel Johnson injured his back lifting an entertainment center while working for Furniture & Things, Inc. In 2016, the Employee began working for Concrete Treatments, Inc. and in October 2018, the Employee sustained another injury to his low back while bending down to remove a door hinge. After the work injury, the Employee treated with Twin Cities Orthopedics. On December 2018, the Employee was involved in a car accident while driving a company-owned car. Shortly after, the Employee sought treatment at Power Within Chiropractic.
In May 2021, the Employee filed a workers’ compensation claim listing the March 2004, October 2018, and December 2018 injuries. He sought payment of outstanding medical benefits including expenses related to treatment from Twin Cities Orthopedics and Power Within Chiropractic. The Employee notified the medical providers of their right to intervene. Twin Cities Orthopedics and Power Within Chiropractic did not respond or move to intervene. In September 2021, the compensation judge issued an order extinguishing the potential intervention interests of Twin Cities Orthopedics and Power Within Chiropractic.
The matter proceeded to hearing in April 2022. At the hearing the Employee asserted a direct claim for payment of the medical expenses he incurred at Twin Cities Orthopedics and Power Within Chiropractic. Counsel for both Employer argued that because those providers’ interests were extinguished by the court order, the Employee’s right to assert a direct claim for payment was also eliminated. The compensation judge concluded that the Employee was entitled to make a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses owed to Twin Cities Orthopedics and Power Within Chiropractic because those medical providers did not intervene.
Concrete Treatments appealed the compensation judge’s findings regarding the Employee’s right to assert a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses. The WCCA majority, relying on its own precedent, reasoned that once the potential intervenors’ interests had been extinguished, the Employee could not bring direct claims on the providers’ behalf unless the Employe’s attorney unequivocally established that he was representing the Employee, Twin Cities Orthopedics, and Power Within Chiropractic. Because the Employee’s attorney made no attempt to establish such representation, the WCCA reversed the compensation judge’s conclusion that the Employee was entitled to make a direct claim for medical expenses. The Employee and Concrete treatments filed petitions for writ of certiorari.
There Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the Employee may assert a direct claim for unpaid medical bills when the unpaid medical providers’ intervention interests were extinguished under Minnesota Statutes section 176.361 (2022).
Regarding the claim for unpaid medical bills Concrete Treatments argued that section 176.361, subdivision 2, plainly prohibits the Employee from asserting a direct claim for medical expenses because the Providers’ intervention interests were extinguished by their failure to intervene by the statutory deadline. The Employee argued that the WCCA erred by denying his direct claim because the dual representation requirement relied upon by the WCCA is inapplicable here, and his right to assert a direct claim is unaffected by the intervention procedures in section 176.361.
Under section 176.361, subdivision 2, “[a] person desiring to intervene in a workers’ compensation case as a party, including but not limited to a health care provider who has rendered services to an employee . . . shall submit a timely written motion to intervene.” The motion must be “served and filed within 60 days after a potential intervenor has been served with notice of a right to intervene.” Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 2(a). “Where a motion to intervene is not timely filed under [section 176.361], the potential intervenor interest shall be extinguished and the potential intervenor may not collect, or attempt to collect, the extinguished interest from the employee.”
Although section 176.361 makes clear that a failure to intervene by the deadline results in extinguishment of the potential intervenor’s intervention interest, the question here is what effect such extinguishment has on the employee’s right to assert a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses. Nothing in the language of section 176.361 impairs the right of the employee to seek direct payment of medical expenses. The Supreme Court concluded the plain language of section 176.361 does not limit an employee’s right to seek direct payment of medical expenses, even when a medical provider has failed to intervene to assert a claim in accordance with the statute. Therefore, the Employee was entitled to assert a direct claim for medical expenses, regardless of the extinguishment of the Providers’ intervention interests under Minnesota Statutes section 176.361.
Next, the court had to resolve whether the Employee lost his ability to assert his direct claim for his unpaid medical bills because his attorney did not unequivocally establish that he also represented the medical providers at the time of hearing. The Supreme Court agreed with the WCCA that the dual representation requirement was inapplicable. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the dual representation requirement was inapplicable and the Employee’s direct claim was otherwise unaffected by the extinguishment of the Providers’ intervention interests, they reversed the WCCA’s conclusion that the Employee was not entitled to assert a direct claim for unpaid medical bills owed to the Providers. The case was remanded to the WCCA to determine whether additional factual findings are necessary regarding the Employee’s direct claim for his unpaid medical expenses.