CAROLYN A. HEMPHILL, Employee/Respondent, v. SOVDE ENTERPRISES, SELF-INSURED/MEADOWBROOK CLAIMS SERVS., Self-Insured Employer/Appellants, and VALLEY BONE & JOINT CLINIC, Intervenor.

The self-insured employer appeals from the compensation judge’s order to pay or reimburse intervenors. We vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The employee, Carolyn Hemphill, sustained an injury on June 20, 2007, while employed by Sovde Enterprises. Liability was admitted, but the nature and extent of the injury was disputed and litigated in 2013. In unappealed findings, the compensation judge determined that the June 20, 2007, work injury was limited to an avulsion fracture of the left thumb, and denied the employee’s claim that the work injury also affected her neck, shoulder, and arm. It is not clear whether and to what extent intervention claims were dealt with at that time.

A subsequent claim petition was filed by the employee in 2014. The employee’s attorney provided notice of a right to intervene to a number of medical providers, a health insurer, the Minnesota Teamsters Construction Division Health and Welfare Fund (“Teamsters Fund”), the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. On the record before this court, it is not clear whether additional entities were later put on notice, nor is it clear which of these potential intervenors filed motions to intervene.

The 2014 claim petition was stricken from the active calendar. Thereafter, a medical dispute arose and the employee filed a request for formal hearing. A rehabilitation request was also filed by the employee’s QRC. These three pleadings were consolidated and came on for hearing on December 1, 2016. No appearances were noted for any intervenor. A discussion was had at the outset of the hearing regarding the claims at issue, however, no mention was made of any intervention claim or of the medical dispute. At the conclusion of the hearing, the employee’s attorney brought to the compensation judge’s attention the receipt of a letter from Mayo Clinic withdrawing its intervention claim.

In his January 30, 2017, Findings and Order, the compensation judge awarded part of the employee’s wage loss claim and denied the rehabilitation request. He listed as an issue considered at the hearing, “whether the intervenors are entitled to payment of, or reimbursement for, their intervention claims in this matter.” He went on to deny any intervention claims because, “none of the intervenors appeared at the hearing in support of their claims.” (Finding 18.) According to the proof of service of the Findings and Order, a copy was sent to Mayo Clinic, Valley Bone & Joint Clinic, and the attorney for the Teamsters Fund.

On February 13, 2017, the attorney for the Teamsters Fund wrote to the compensation judge requesting “reconsideration” of the compensation judge’s denial of their intervention claim. The attorney stated in her letter that the application to intervene complied with Minn. Stat. § 176.361, as amended effective August 1, 2016, that there had been no order requiring the Teamsters Fund appear at the hearing, and that as a result, the compensation judge’s denial of its intervention claim was incorrect.

In response, the compensation judge issued an Amended Findings and Order on February 14, 2017, vacating his denial of intervention claims and ordering the self-insured employer to, “pay the intervenors [sic] claims related to the employee’s June 20, 2007 work-related left thumb injury and avulsion fracture.” The compensation judge did not identify specific intervenors.

The self-insured employer appeals from the Amended Findings and Order.

During the pendency of the self-insured employer’s appeal, the attorney for the Teamsters Fund wrote this court withdrawing its intervention claim. The reason stated for the withdrawal was that benefits paid by the Teamsters Fund were for conditions that the compensation judge had found to be unrelated to the work injury in the 2013 decision.

The self-insured employer then wrote this court, asking that we consider the merits of their appeal despite the withdrawal of the Teamster Fund claim, because, “there are a number of potential intervention claims that may be subject to the compensation judge’s Amended Findings and Order.” The self-insured employer did not identify specific intervenors. Other than the letter from the Teamster Fund attorney, and the letter and brief from the self-insured employer, this court has received no filings or communication from the employee or any potential intervenor.

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 Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993), summarily aff’d (Minn. June 3, 1993).

The self-insured employer appeals from the Amended Findings and Order, arguing that the compensation judge erred in considering possible intervention claims because the issue was not properly presented to the compensation judge for his consideration at the hearing and that there is no basis for an award to any intervenor. We agree in part.

An intervenor is defined in the Workers’ Compensation Act as, “[a] person who has an interest in [a workers’ compensation matter] such that the person may either gain or lose by an order or decision.” Minn. Stat. § 176.361. The number or identity of entities or persons who intervened in this matter is not clear from the record, nor is the nature of their claims. What is clear, however, is that there were parties with an interest in the outcome whose claims were as necessary to a resolution of issues before the compensation judge as was any other claim. No intervention claims, other than the withdrawal of that of Mayo Clinic, were addressed at the hearing. It is incumbent upon not only employees’ attorneys, but also attorneys for employers and insurers and compensation judges, to make sure that all issues are considered, and that the rights of all parties, including intervenors, are addressed at the hearing. That was not done here.

Accordingly, we conclude that those parts of Findings 18 and 19, and Order 3, of the Amended Findings and Order, which awarded payment or reimbursement to unidentified intervenors, must be vacated.^[1] We remand this matter to the compensation judge for a determination of whether intervention claims exist as a result of the June 20, 2007, work injury, whether intervention claims were properly made in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 176.361, and whether specific intervention claims are payable.