Koehnen v. Flagship Marine Co.

947 N.W.2d 448

Scott KOEHNEN, Respondent,

v. FLAGSHIP MARINE COMPANY and Auto Owners Insurance Company, Respondents,andKeith Johnson, D.C., Relator.

A20-0053

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: August 12, 2020

Blake Bauer, Fields Law Firm, Minnetonka, Minnesota, for respondent Scott Koehnen.

Michael R. Johnson, Natalie K. Lund, Cousineau, Waldhauser & Kieselbach, P.A., Mendota Heights, Minnesota, for respondents Flagship Marine Company and Auto Owners Insurance Company.

David C. Wulff, Law Office of David C. Wulff, Roseville, Minnesota, for relator.

Kristen L. Ohlsen, Amy M. Byrne, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson & Hager, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Katie H. Storms, João C.J.G. de Medeiros, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association.

OPINION

McKEIG, Justice.

This case asks us to decide whether a health care provider, who did not intervene after receiving adequate notice of an employee's pending workers’ compensation proceeding, can collaterally attack an Award on Stipulation under Minn. Stat. §§ 176.271, .291 (2018), or Minn. R. 1420.1850, subp. 3B (2019). Because we conclude that the provider cannot do so, we affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.

FACTS

Respondent Scott Koehnen suffered a back injury on May 30, 2017, while working within the course and scope of his employment for his employer, respondent Flagship Marine Company. The employee received chiropractic treatment and supplies from relator Keith Johnson at Johnson Chiropractic Clinic between June 2017 and February 2018, resulting in medical bills totaling $9,476.01. Johnson submitted his charges to respondent Auto Owners Insurance Company, the workers’ compensation insurer for Kohenen's employer, requesting payment. At that time, however, the employer and insurer (collectively, Flagship Marine) denied liability for Koehnen's injury. Koehnen had no other forms of insurance. Thus, Johnson's bills were not paid.

On September 25, 2017, Koehnen filed a claim petition seeking workers’ compensation benefits relating to his back injury, including payment of the treatment that he had received from Johnson (among other providers). That same day, Koehnen, through his attorney, mailed a letter to Johnson entitled "Notice to Potential Intervenors," informing Johnson of his right to intervene under Minn. Stat. § 176.361 (2018).

Johnson received Koehnen's notice but "chose to exercise his right to not intervene." (Emphasis added) Accordingly, he did not move to intervene under Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 2 (allowing a person who wants to intervene in pending proceedings, including "a health care provider," to file a written motion). The proceeding continued without him. Although Johnson initially contested the adequacy of the notice, he has since conceded that the notice that he received was timely and adequate as a matter of law.

In April 2018, Koehnen and Flagship Marine entered into a settlement agreement, which resolved Koehnen's claim for benefits, settled the interests of an intervening health care provider, and extinguished the claims of the potential intervenors who received adequate notice but did not intervene, including Johnson. The settlement agreement did not resolve the liability dispute between Koehnen and Flagship Marine. At the time of settlement negotiations, Koehnen and Flagship Marine were aware of Johnson's "unpaid balance for the treatment he rendered" to Koehnen. Koehnen and Flagship had the information necessary to contact Johnson, but no settlement offer was communicated to Johnson.

The Stipulation for Settlement provided:

The parties further stipulate and agree that Johnson Chiropractic Clinic ... [was] served with Notice of Right to Intervene, by letter dated September 25, 2017 .... Johnson Chiropractic Clinic ... [has] failed to intervene within 60 days of the notice [it] received, and pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.361, [its] failure to intervene shall result in [its] claims being extinguished and prohibit [it] from collecting or attempting to collect the extinguished interest from the Employee, Employer, Insurers, or any government program.

On April 23, 2018, the compensation judge approved the Stipulation for Settlement and issued an Award on Stipulation. The Award on Stipulation provided: "More than 60 days has expired and pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 2, any potential interest[ ] of Johnson Chiropractic Clinic ... [is] hereby extinguished." The Office of Administrative Hearings mailed a copy of the Award on Stipulation to Johnson on April 25, 2018.

More than 8 months later, on January 2, 2019, Johnson filed a Petition for Payment of Medical Expenses with the Office of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 176.271, .291, which address the initiation of workers’ compensation proceedings by petition, and Minn. R. 1420.1850, subp. 3B, which addresses the remedies available to intervenors. Johnson's petition alleged that Koehnen and Flagship Marine failed to comply with Minn. Stat. § 176.521 (2018). Johnson further asserted that because he was "completely excluded from all settlement negotiations," he was entitled to automatic reimbursement of his charges for Koehnen's treatment, with statutory interest, in accordance with Brooks . See Brooks v. A.M.F., Inc. , 278 N.W.2d 310, 315 (Minn. 1979) (holding that "an intervenor who is excluded from participating in negotiations resulting in a final settlement and who is not a party to the settlement stipulation should, on principles of equity and public policy, be awarded full reimbursement by the settlement award"). Finally, regarding the April 2018 Award on Stipulation, Johnson asserted that the compensation judge lacked the authority to extinguish his interests and, in the alternative, that any statute purporting to grant a compensation judge this authority was invalid and unenforceable.

Koehnen and Flagship Marine moved to dismiss Johnson's petition. The compensation judge granted their motions, holding that Johnson's interest was properly extinguished under Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 2, and that Johnson lacked standing to assert an independent claim for payment in the absence of a pending claim asserted by the employee. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed. Koehnen v. Flagship Marine Co. , No. WC19-6287, 2019 WL 7580063 (Minn. WCCA Dec. 27, 2019). Johnson filed a timely petition for writ of certiorari.

ANALYSIS

This appeal requires that we determine whether a potential intervenor, who did not intervene after receiving adequate notice of an employee's pending workers’ compensation proceeding, can initiate a proceeding to collaterally attack the validity of a final award on stipulation under Minn. Stat. §§ 176.271, .291, and Minn. R. 1420.1850, subp. 3B. Thus, we must interpret the language of the relevant statutes and rules, which is a question of law subject to de novo review. See J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minn. Dep't of Transp. , 878 N.W.2d 1, 4–5 (Minn. 2016). If the language is unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning. Id.

I.

Medical providers who treat injured employees for work-related injuries are entitled to reimbursement from the employer. See Minn. Stat. § 176.135, subd. 1(a) (2018). To assert that right, the medical provider may intervene in the proceedings initiated by the employee under Minn. Stat. ch. 176 (2018).¹ See Gamble v. Twin Cities Concrete Prods. , 852 N.W.2d 245, 248 (Minn. 2014) ; see also Brooks , 278 N.W.2d at 314 (stating that "procedures were instituted" after the decision in Tatro v. Hartmann's Store , 295 Minn. 282, 204 N.W.2d 125 (1973), "to ensure that interested parties would be notified of their right to intervene").

Johnson insists, however, that regardless of the intervention procedures set out in Minn. Stat. § 176.361, he may collaterally attack an existing settlement award by filing a claim for reimbursement under Minn. Stat. §§ 176.271, .291, and Minn. R. 1420.1850, subp. 3B. Thus, we turn to these statutes and the rules to determine whether a potential intervenor who chooses not to intervene after receiving adequate notice of a proceeding may initiate a collateral attack under chapter 176. "When interpreting a statute to determine if it creates a cause of action, we do not ask whether the statute imposes a limitation on an otherwise unlimited claim, but instead determine whether the statute actually provides a cause of action to a particular class of persons." Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co. , 781 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn. 2010). This is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. at 861.

Johnson initiated this proceeding by filing a petition under sections 176.271 and 176.291. Section 176.271 states:

Unless otherwise provided by this chapter or by the commissioner, all proceedings under this chapter are initiated by the filing of a written petition on a prescribed form with the commissioner at the commissioner's principal office. All claim petitions shall include the information required by section 176.291.

See also Minn. Stat. § 176.291(b) (listing required elements of a section 176.271 petition). Johnson also contends that his claim for reimbursement presents a "dispute as to a question of law or fact" regarding Koehnen's compensation claim under section 176.291. See Minn. Stat. § 176.291(a). Although he insists that he was not a party to the prior proceeding, Johnson summarily asserts that he now qualifies as a "party" entitled to "file a petition with the commissioner" under section 176.291. See id. Our precedent, along with other sections of the Workers’ Compensation Act, confirms that neither statute allows a potential intervenor to pursue a collateral attack when the potential intervenor knew of his right to intervene in an employee's pending proceeding but chose not to do so.

A.

We begin with Johnson's claim under section 176.271. Tatro v. Hartmann's Store is instructive. 295 Minn. 282, 204 N.W.2d 125 (1973). In Tat...