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...