Dilley v. Carver Cnty. Sheriff, 022219 MNWC, WC18-6205

Case DateFebruary 22, 2019
CourtMinnesota
BRIAN DILLEY, Employee/Appellant,
v.
CARVER CNTY. SHERIFF and MN COUNTIES INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRUST, SELF-INSURED, Employer-Insurer/Respondents.
No. WC18-6205
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
February 22, 2019
         ATTORNEY FEES – HEATON FEES. The compensation judge erred in concluding that the employee’s attorney was ineligible for Heaton fees where the attorney represented the employee’s interests in a dispute over rehabilitation services, even though the primary dispute was payment of a QRC’s past bills and the QRC represented herself. The case is remanded for a determination of a reasonable attorney fee pursuant to Heaton and Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1.           Ronald F. Meuser, Jr. and Mary Beth Boyce, Meuser Law Office, P.A., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, for the Appellant.           Timothy P. Jung and Katie H. Storms, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondent.           Determined by: Deborah K. Sundquist, Judge, David A. Stofferahn, Judge, Gary M. Hall, Judge           Compensation Judge: Kathleen Behounek          Reversed and Remanded.           OPINION           DEBORAH K. SUNDQUIST, Judge.          The employee appeals the judge’s finding which denied Heaton1 attorney fees where the QRC had filed both the rehabilitation request and request for formal hearing, the sole issue at hearing was payment of past vocational rehabilitation bills, the employee and his attorney were served with notice of the hearing, and the employee’s attorney attended both the underlying administrative conference and formal hearing. Because there was a dispute over the payment of rehabilitation benefits, the employee’s attorney is entitled to Heaton attorney fees. We, therefore, reverse and remand.          BACKGROUND          Brian Dilley, the employee, worked as a Deputy Sheriff for Carver County, the self-insured employer, between 2001 and 2016. On July 14, 2005, he injured his low back at work and underwent two surgeries. On September 27, 2015, the employee injured his back again and underwent a third low back surgery in 2016. He was released to return to work with permanent restrictions. In a Findings and Order of January 27, 2017, the employer was ordered to provide the employee with vocational rehabilitation services. A qualified rehabilitation consultant (QRC), Angela Hunter, initiated rehabilitation services for which she billed the employer. However, the employer paid only part of the services billed, claiming Minn. Stat. § 176.102, subd. 5(b), restricted the QRC to 20 hours of job development per month, and that the QRC had exceeded the limit. The QRC filed a rehabilitation request seeking payment in full. She subsequently filed three more rehabilitation requests for additional unpaid bills. The employer filed rehabilitation responses objecting to payment.          A September 27, 2017, administrative conference addressed the four consolidated rehabilitation requests. The employee and his attorney were served notice of the conference. In a decision and order pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.106, filed on October 12, 2017, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT