The employee’s heirs have appealed the compensation judge’s decision as to the amount of interest owed by the insurer for an underpayment of permanent total disability benefits, the denial of a claim for penalties, and from the finding that the cost of obtaining a decree of descent was not a taxable cost. The employer and insurer have cross-appealed the compensation judge’s determination of the date from which interest on the underpayment of benefits is owed. We vacate and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

The employee, Richard Oseland, sustained a work-related injury while in the employ of Crow Wing County on January 10, 1980. Auto-Owners Insurance was the insurer for the employer. Liability for the injury was accepted by the insurer and benefits were paid. The employee was determined to be permanently and totally disabled as a result of his work injury as of July 1, 1987. Payment of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits was initiated by Auto-Owners. Pursuant to existing case law and rules, the insurer took an offset under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, for Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) benefits received by the employee from the employer after $25,000.00 in PTD benefits had been paid.^[1] The employee died on February 22, 2013, and PTD benefits ceased as of that date.

On August 13, 2014, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decisions in Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 213, 851 N.W.2d 874, 74 W.C.D. 463 (Minn. 2014) and Hartwig v. Traverse Care Ctr., 852 N.W.2d 251, 74 W.C.D. 795 (Minn. 2014). In those decisions, the court held that the offset referred to in Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, for an employee’s receipt of “any old age and survivor’s insurance benefits” applied only to the receipt of social security retirement benefits.

On September 29, 2015, the Department of Labor and Industry (“Department”) alerted workers’ compensation insurers that “time sensitive” correspondence would be sent out advising insurers as to the Department’s position on the effects of Hartwig and Ekdahl. In the letter to insurers, including Auto-Owners, the Department advised that Hartwig and Ekdahl applied prospectively and retroactively to all cases with dates of injury before and after October 1, 1995. The Department stated that as a “result of these decisions, there are employees who have been underpaid PTD benefits. Also, prior supplementary benefit reimbursements to you [the insurer] have resulted in an overpayment by the Special Compensation Fund.” The Special Compensation Fund elected not to pursue collection of its overpayment at that time but reserved the right to consider recovery in the future. The Department advised insurers to pay employees any underpayment of past permanent total disability benefits and to pay appropriate benefits going forward.

Auto-Owners responded to the Department within two weeks, advising the Department that it would review open files first, that many of its closed files were in storage, and the review of those files would likely take longer to complete than the 45 days referred to in the Department’s letter. The Department responded that Auto-Owner’s plan was “appropriate.” On November 16, 2015, Auto-Owners notified the Department that there were two files it had identified in which the employee had received an offset in benefits no longer allowed under the Hartwig and Ekdahl decisions and in which the employee was now deceased. Richard Oseland’s file was one of those two files.

On June 16, 2016, the Department sent Auto-Owners its calculation of the amount of underpayment made to Mr. Oseland, and the amount of over-reimbursement of supplementary benefits Auto-Owners had received from the Special Compensation Fund. Auto-Owners advised Gail Oseland, the employee’s daughter-in-law, on July 13 and 15, 2016, that the company was reviewing the Department’s calculations to see if there was agreement on the numbers. On September 7, 2016, Auto-Owners advised the Department that its calculation of the underpayment of permanent total disability benefits was about $10,000.00 less than the calculations of the Department. The Department responded on September 26, 2016, and stated it agreed with Auto-Owners’ calculations.

In September 2016 Auto-Owners contacted Terrence Oseland, one of the employee’s sons, and notified him that Auto-Owners had calculated an underpayment of approximately $159,000.00. The employee’s son was also told that Auto-Owners needed the name of the estate, the name of the personal representative, and the estate tax number and address. Auto-Owners sent a follow-up email on October 24, 2016, asking again for that information.

On September 28, 2016, the employee’s heirs retained an attorney to represent them in this workers’ compensation matter. A claim petition was filed on November 3, 2016, claiming an underpayment of permanent total disability benefits and claiming interest on that amount. An answer was filed on behalf of the employer and insurer in which an underpayment of permanent total disability benefits was admitted. The employer and insurer stated that they were willing to make payment of the underpayment upon submission of the estate tax information, including the identity of the personal representative of the estate.

On January 31, 2017, a decree of descent was issued in Crow Wing County District Court. The decree named Richard Lee Oseland, Karen Jean Hayhoe, and Terrence Eugene Oseland as the employee’s heirs and owners of the employee’s personal property, identified as “any workers [sic] compensation benefits or claim.”

Because the employee’s heirs, through their attorney, were claiming entitlement to the amount of underpayment initially calculated by the Department, which was later revised, the insurer requested a settlement conference. The parties entered into a partial stipulation for settlement in March 2017, in which the insurer agreed to pay the amount it acknowledged owing. The claim of the employee’s heirs for additional payment, interest, and penalties remained unresolved.

The claim petition was heard by a compensation judge on August 21, 2017, and a Findings and Order was issued on October 5, 2017. The compensation judge determined that the employer and insurer had accurately calculated the amount of underpayment and no additional payment was due. Interest was allowed on the underpayment “from the date the original benefits were owed” with the interest rate to be determined by the statute in effect at the time the benefit was to have been paid. The employee’s claim for penalties was denied. The employee’s claim for taxable costs associated with obtaining the decree of descent was denied. The employee appealed and the employer and insurer cross-appealed. The employer and insurer have also filed a motion to dismiss to the employee’s appeal.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals must determine whether “the findings of fact and order [are] clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1(3). Substantial evidence supports the findings if, in the context of the entire record, “they are supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.” Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 59, 37 W.C.D. 235, 239 (Minn. 1984). Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed. Id. at 60, 37 W.C.D. at 240. Similarly, findings of fact should not be disturbed, even though the reviewing court might disagree with them, “unless they are clearly erroneous in the sense that they are manifestly contrary to the weight of evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975).

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).

In 2017, the legislature enacted a provision to clarify the holdings in Hartwig and Ekdahl. Act of May 30, 2017, ch. 94, art. 4, § 1, 2017 Minn. Laws 747, 797 (codified as Minn. Stat.§ 1292 effective May 31, 2017). In addition to the procedures set forth in the provision, the Special Compensation Fund has issued guidance for its application to cases involving dates of injury occurring prior to October 1, 1995, such as that of Mr. Oseland.

Application of this provision was not considered by the parties or by the compensation judge. The potential application of this provision to the facts in this case, the claims of the employee’s heirs, and the issues raised by the appeal and cross-appeal need to be addressed. Accordingly, we vacate the compensation judge’s Findings and Order and remand for further findings and determination.