The employee appeals from the compensation judge's denial of the employee’s request that the employer and insurer pay the ongoing costs of his guardianship/conservatorship pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 176.092.  We vacate the judge’s findings and order and dismiss the employee’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On January 4, 2002, Troels Botler [the employee] sustained severe work-related injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, when he fell from the roof of a greenhouse onto a concrete floor in the course of his employment with Wagner Greenhouses.  The employee’s injury rendered the employee totally disabled, and Wagner Greenhouses [the employer] and its insurer acknowledged liability and commenced payment of benefits.  The employee’s injuries required his case to be referred to district court for appointment of a legal guardian and conservator pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 176.092, and on April 15, 2002, the employee’s wife was appointed by the Hennepin County District Court, Probate/Mental Health Division [the district court] to act in that capacity.  The following year, the employee filed a claim petition, seeking various additional workers’ compensation benefits as well as payment of attorney fees and costs related to his guardianship/conservatorship and payment of related court-required annual accounting expenses.  The employer and insurer denied the employee’s requests for the annual fees and costs related to the guardianship/conservatorship, on grounds that Minnesota Statutes section 524.5-501 requires an employer and insurer to pay only for the costs of the appointment of a guardian, not subsequent annual fees and costs.

On a date not of record, the employee and his wife were divorced,^[1] and in September of 2006 Patricia Bangsund, an employee of corporate fiduciary Lutheran Social Services [LSS], began to serve as the employee’s guardian/conservator.  On September 20, 2006, the district court formally appointed LSS to act as the employee’s guardian/conservator, and Letters of Successor Guardianship and Conservatorship were issued on October 3, 2006, pursuant to the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act.  See Minn. Stat. §§ 524.5-101 to 524.5-502.

Pursuant to LSS’s legal guardianship responsibilities, Ms. Bangsund’s duties have included such activities as visiting the employee monthly, working with nursing home personnel, attending quarterly care conferences to review the employee’s treatment plan, consenting to treatment, conferring with the employee’s doctors and other health care providers, making decisions on where the employee lives, and being responsible for the employee’s personal items.^[2]  In her capacity as conservator of the employee’s assets, Ms. Bangsund’s duties have also included such activities as gathering and managing the employee’s assets, contacting the Social Security office to become the payee of Social Security disability benefits, dealing with attorneys on issues of marital dissolution asset splitting, mailing medical bills to the insurer for payment, and paying the employee’s other bills out of the employee’s assets.  LSS charges $60.00 an hour for the guardianship/conservatorship services that it provides for the employee.

The matter came on for hearing before a compensation judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings on March 7, 2007.  Issues at hearing were (1) whether Minnesota Statutes section 176.092 requires a workers’ compensation insurer to pay for only the initial appointment of a guardian or conservator or for the appointment of successor guardians and conservators as well and (2), whether Minnesota workers’ compensation law requires the workers’ compensation insurer to pay (a) reasonable compensation to the individual or corporate fiduciary who is providing the guardianship or conservatorship services and (b) the costs of the required annual accounting to the district court.

By Findings and Order filed May 23, 2007, the compensation judge concluded that Minnesota law requires an insurer or self-insured employer to pay the court costs and reasonable attorney fees associated with the appointment of a guardian or conservator and also those court costs and legal fees associated with the appointment of successor guardians and conservators.  On that basis, the judge ordered the employer and insurer to pay all court costs and reasonable attorney fees associated with the appointment of LSS as the successor guardian/conservator in this case.  The judge went on to conclude, however, that “Chapter 176 of the Minnesota statutes does not set out that a workers’ compensation insurer or self-insured employer in Minnesota is responsible for paying the reasonable charges of guardians and conservators and the costs of preparing and filing the annual accounting required by Probate Court.”  The judge then found that “[t]he employer and insurer in this case do not have to pay Lutheran Social Services for providing guardianship and conservatorship services and for preparing and filing the annual accounting required by Probate Court.”  The employee appeals.

“[A] decision which rests upon the application of a statute or rule to essentially undisputed facts generally involves a question of law which [the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals] may consider de novo.”  Krovchuk v. Koch Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993).

The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act provides, in part, as follows with respect to injured minor or incapacitated employees:

The Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act provides, in part, as follows with respect to costs and fees relating to guardianships and conservatorships of injured workers:

The legislature has provided a specific and comprehensive process within the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act for the oversight and payment of guardians and conservators appointed under that Act.  The Act invests the district court with the authority and jurisdiction to control and direct the actions of conservators and guardians.  Accordingly, we conclude that the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation courts does not extend to interpreting or applying Minn. Stat. § 524.5-501(c).  And, because we find nothing in the Workers’ Compensation Act authorizing the relief requested here, we vacate the compensation judge’s findings and order and dismiss the appeal.^[3]