Minnesota Chiropractor's Inaction Causes Loss of $9K in Medical Care Charges
The Supreme Court of Minnesota recently held that a health care provider who voluntarily declined to intervene in a pending workers’ compensation proceeding after receiving timely and adequate notice of the right to intervene could not initiate a collateral attack on the compensation award under Minn. Stat. §§ 176.271, .291 (2018), or Minn. R. 1420.1850, subp. 3B (2019) [Koehnen v. Flagship Marine Co., 2020 Minn. LEXIS 368 (Aug. 12, 2020)]. Acknowledging that an “intervenor” may present evidence that it was effectively excluded from meaningful settlement negotiations, the Court held that because the chiropractor chose not to intervene, he was not an intervenor, and, therefore, he was not protected.
Background
Koehnen suffered a work-related back injury on May 30, 2017. He received chiropractic treatment and supplies from Keith Johnson at Johnson Chiropractic Clinic (“Johnson”) between June 2017 and February 2018, resulting in medical bills totaling $9,476.01. Johnson submitted his charges to 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 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 did not intervene and the proceeding continued without him.
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. At the time of settlement negotiations, Koehnen and Flagship Marine were aware of Johnson’s charges and that they had not been paid. No settlement offer was communicated to Johnson.
On April 23, 2018, the compensation judge approved the Stipulation for Settlement and issued an Award on Stipulation, which provided, inter alia, that any potential interest that Johnson had was 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, Johnson filed a Petition, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 176.271, .291, seeking reimbursement as an intervenor for the chiropractic charges, asserting that he had been “completely excluded from all settlement negotiations.” 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. Johnson appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The appellate court framed the issue: might a “potential intervenor, who did not intervene after receiving adequate notice of an employee’s pending workers’ compensation proceeding, 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” [Opinion, p. 6].
The court stressed that the interest Johnson sought to assert by initiating a proceeding for reimbursement was the same interest that he had the opportunity to protect through intervention. Johnson had chosen not to intervene. It also stressed that the Act specified proper mechanisms for ensuring that medical providers receive prompt payments. Those provisions did not apply in this case, however, because the compensability of Koehnen’s injury was unresolved. If Koehnen had other forms of insurance, the Act would require his primary insurer to pay Johnson until a compensation judge determined whether the employer were liable for these claims. Here, however, Koehnen was otherwise uninsured. The Legislature did not enact a parallel provision to provide for prompt payment when an injured employee had no other forms of insurance. If this were an oversight, it would be one for the Legislature to fix.
Potential Intervenor
The court acknowledged that an intervenor may present evidence that the intervenor was effectively excluded from meaningful settlement negotiations through lack of an offer of settlement, lack of notice of the right to intervene, or an unreasonable or bad faith offer of settlement. But because Johnson chose not to intervene, he was not an intervenor, and the procedural protections afforded such intervenors did not apply. Accordingly, Johnson’s collateral attack under Minn. Stat. § 176.291 and Minn. R. 1420.1850, subp. 3B failed as a matter of law.