JURISDICTION – SUBJECT MATTER; RULES CONSTRUED – MINN. R. 1420.3700. The Office of Administrative Hearings is not divested of jurisdiction over a matter that has been reported settled by the parties when an employee withdraws a claim petition, or the claim petition is dismissed based on a pending settlement, but the stipulation for settlement is later filed and approved.
Compensation Judge: Kirsten M. Tate
Attorneys: Gary L. Meyer, Meyer, Puklich, & Merriam, P.L.C., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, for the Appellant. Timothy J. Manahan and Kathryn L. Hammers, Brown & Carlson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondents.
Affirmed.
DAVID A. STOFFERAHN, Judge
Judge Supervisor Kirsten Tate issued a Findings and Order imposing sanctions pursuant to Minn. R. 1420.3700 against the employee’s attorney, who has appealed. We affirm.
The employee filed a claim petition in January 2017, asserting entitlement to various workers’ compensation benefits arising out of Gillette[1] injuries he claimed to have sustained on September 1 and September 24, 2016. The employer and insurer filed a timely answer to the claim petition denying primary liability for the alleged injuries.
The parties subsequently reached an agreement to settle the employee’s claims and reported the settlement to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on February 8, 2018. On the same date, OAH scheduled a stipulation status conference for April 18, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. before Judge Supervisor Kirsten Tate. The parties were advised that the conference would be cancelled if the stipulation was filed before that date.
In the early morning hours of April 18, 2018, the employee’s attorney, Gary Meyer, sent an email to Compensation Judge Sandra Grove with a copy to Judge Tate. In the email, Attorney Meyer stated that the employee “voluntarily withdraws and dismisses” the claim petition filed in January 2017, and requested an order dismissing the claim petition without prejudice. Attorney Meyer further stated that, based on the dismissal of the claim petition, he assumed the conference set for that afternoon would be cancelled as “unnecessary.” Within hours, Judge Tate responded, asking Attorney Meyer to confirm that a stipulation for settlement would not be forthcoming in the case. Attorney Meyer did not respond to Judge Tate. An order dismissing the employee’s claim petition without prejudice was issued by Judge Grove on the same day.
The conference took place as scheduled and Attorney Meyer did not appear. An attorney for the employer and insurer attended and informed Judge Tate that a stipulation for settlement had been prepared, but filing was delayed because the employee’s signature page had yet to be received.
On May 2, 2018, Judge Tate issued an order to show cause regarding whether sanctions should be imposed against Attorney Meyer. Judge Tate noted in the order that Attorney Meyer had been previously advised that withdrawal of a claim petition would not provide a basis for cancelling a stipulation status conference if a stipulation for settlement was going to be filed. A hearing was set for June 5, 2018.
Despite the withdrawal of the claim petition and the order dismissing the claim petition, Attorney Meyer continued to pursue settlement of the case. On May 8, 2018, the completed stipulation for settlement was filed with OAH. An award on stipulation was issued on May 9, 2018.
On June 2, 2018, Attorney Meyer faxed a letter to Judge Tate in which he stated that he would not attend the upcoming hearing because the order dismissing his claim petition divested OAH of any further jurisdiction over the case.
The hearing on the judge’s order took place as scheduled on June 5. An attorney for the employer and insurer was present, but Attorney Meyer did not appear. Judge Tate issued her Findings and Order on August 1, 2018. She found Attorney Meyer’s actions warranted sanctions, determined that a reasonable fee for the attorney from the law firm representing the employer and insurer to appear at the conference and at the hearing was $1,000.00, and ordered Attorney Meyer to pay that amount to the law firm.
Attorney Meyer has appealed.
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).
Attorney Meyer argues on appeal that the voluntary dismissal of the employee’s claim petition and the order dismissing the claim petition divested OAH of jurisdiction over the case. He contends that the conference, the order for the hearing, and Judge Tate’s Findings and Order imposing sanctions were null and of no effect. We disagree.
To be valid, an agreement seeking to resolve a dispute over workers’ compensation benefits must be executed in writing, signed by the parties, approved by the commissioner or a compensation judge where required, and an award made on the agreement. Minn. Stat. § 176.521, subds. 1 and 2. In the present case, for the employee’s dismissal of the claim petition to have any legal effect, the employee would have had to cease settlement negotiations with the employer and insurer and forego any pending claims. In her email of April 18 to Attorney Meyer, Judge Tate requested confirmation that no stipulation would be filed, but Attorney Meyer did not respond.
Attorney Meyer asserts that because the order dismissing the claim petition was not appealed, OAH no longer had jurisdiction over the matter, citing Gerhardt v. Enzymology Research Ctr., Inc., 78 W.C.D. 353 (W.C.C.A. 2018). We disagree. In Gerhardt, this court determined that a compensation judge had no authority to issue an amended decision after a notice of appeal had been filed or the 30-day appeal period had expired, citing Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1, and Minn. R. 1420.3150, subp. 1. This case does not apply in these circumstances. After withdrawing the claim petition, Attorney Meyer proceeded with the settlement of the employee’s claims. The parties were intending to file a stipulation for settlement with OAH at the time of the conference and did so on May 8, 2018, requesting an award on stipulation which was subsequently issued by OAH on May 9, 2018. These actions would have had no legal effect in the absence of OAH jurisdiction. OAH retained jurisdiction over this matter at the time the order to show cause was filed on May 2, 2018.
Minn. R. 1420.3700, subp. 2, allows a compensation judge on her or his own motion to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the order of a judge. Attorney Meyer had been previously advised by Judge Tate that dismissing a claim petition did not divest OAH of jurisdiction where the parties were requesting an award on stipulation to complete a settlement. Attorney Meyer had no basis for disregarding the stipulation status conference and Judge Tate’s subsequent orders. He was given ample opportunity to respond to the inquiries regarding the status of the settlement in this case but chose not to do so. We conclude the judge’s Findings and Order imposing sanctions is amply supported by the law and facts in this case. Accordingly, the judge’s decision is affirmed.