VALERIE WINSTEAD, Employee,
v.
MARTIN LUTHER MANOR/FAIRVIEW HEALTH SVCS., SELF-INSURED, Employer/Respondent,
and
PAR, INC., Appellant.
No. WC18-6191
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
January 16, 2019
REHABILITATION
- REHABILITATION REQUEST; PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
-INTERVENTION; SETTLEMENTS - EXCLUSION. A rehabilitation
provider who filed a rehabilitation request which was not
certified as a dispute and was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, and who was advised to file a motion to
intervene but failed to do so, was not a party. Its interests
were extinguished by operation of statute, and it was not
entitled to a Parker-Lindberg hearing.
David
J. Klaiman, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson & Hager,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondents.
Michael G. Schultz, Sommerer & Schultz, PLLC,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Appellant.
Determined by: Sean M. Quinn, Judge, Patricia J. Milun, Chief
Judge, David A. Stofferahn, Judge
Compensation Judge: Sandra J. Grove
Affirmed.
OPINION
SEAN
M. QUINN, Judge.
PAR
appeals from a compensation judge’s determination that
it was not an intervenor and thus was entitled to neither
payment for rehabilitation services provided nor to a
Parker-Lindberg[1] hearing.
BACKGROUND
On
January 25, 2017, the employee, Valerie Winstead, suffered an
alleged work-related injury while working for the
self-insured employer, which denied primary liability.
On
March 10, 2017, the employee, represented by attorney Michael
Schultz, served and filed a claim petition seeking various
benefits including “vocational services.” The
claim petition identified a “rehabilitation expert
reserved” as a witness. Two medical providers were
notified of their right to intervene, however, because the
employee did not yet have a Qualified Rehabilitation
Consultant (QRC) and had not received any vocational
services, no intervention notice was given to any vocational
services provider.
On the
same day, March 10, 2017, the employee’s attorney
served and filed a rehabilitation request seeking to have PAR
provide vocational rehabilitation services, and a copy was
mailed to PAR.
The
employer filed a rehabilitation response on March 21, 2017,
asserting that because primary liability had been denied, the
employee should seek rehabilitation services from the
Vocational Rehabilitation Unit (VRU) of the Department of
Labor and Industry (DLI). This rehabilitation response was
served on the employee and her attorney, and was mailed to
PAR. The employer’s attorney also sent a letter to PAR,
copied to Mr. Schultz, reiterating the employer’s
position that because there was a denial of primary
liability, vocational services should be provided by VRU
rather than PAR. The letter went on to advise PAR that the
employer would deny liability and payment for any services
PAR provided.
On the
following day, March 22, 2017, a QRC at PAR performed a
vocational rehabilitation consultation. On April 4, 2017, the
QRC filed a rehabilitation consultation report which stated,
among other things, that the employee was not precluded from
engaging in her usual and customary occupation and that she
could reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful
employment with the employer. The QRC nevertheless found the
employee qualified to receive rehabilitation services.
After
receiving the rehabilitation consultation report, the
employer filed a rehabilitation request, served on the
employee and her attorney, and mailed to PAR, asking that
rehabilitation services provided by PAR be terminated because
the employer had denied primary liability, and because the
employee was not a qualified employee for the purpose of
receiving rehabilitation services. The record contains no
response to this rehabilitation request from the employee or
PAR. On April 18, 2017, a compensation judge consolidated the
employee’s claim petition and the employer’s
rehabilitation request.
PAR
continued to provide various rehabilitation services. On June
16, 2017, PAR, acting pro se, filed a rehabilitation request
at DLI, seeking payment for outstanding invoices for
rehabilitation services totaling $1,567.76. Counsel for both
the employee and the employer were served with this
rehabilitation request.
In
response to the employer’s attorney’s March 21...
