MARY FARRELL, Employee/Appellant, v. ST. PAUL CAFÉ and GREAT AM. ALLIANCE INS., Employer-Insurer/Respondents and BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINN. AND BLUE PLUS and ALLINA MED. CLINIC, Intervenors.

The employee appeals from a compensation judge’s findings and order granting the employer and insurer’s request to change case managers. We vacate the findings and order and dismiss the employer and insurer’s rehabilitation request.

The employee, Mary Farrell, suffered an admitted work-related injury on May 27, 2004, while working for the employer, St. Paul Café. Over the course of the years since the date of the injury, the employee has undergone numerous spinal surgeries and as a result is permanently and totally disabled (PTD). On April 1, 2016, a compensation judge signed an award on stipulation approving a settlement whereby the employee was declared PTD.^[1]

Earlier, on July 3, 2013, a compensation judge signed an award on stipulation based upon a separate settlement, which closed out vocational rehabilitation and retraining.

Subsequently, the employer and insurer voluntarily began providing disability case management services through nurse Michael Anderson, a case manager. The employee was satisfied with Mr. Anderson’s services, but over time, the employer and insurer became dissatisfied with the manner in which he performed those services. They filed a rehabilitation request seeking to terminate Mr. Anderson as the case manager. The matter came on for a hearing before a compensation judge. The compensation judge found that there was no workers’ compensation statute nor rule governing changes to voluntarily-provided disability case management services. The compensation judge granted the employer and insurer’s request to change case managers. The employee appeals.

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).

Employers and insurers may voluntarily provide disability case management services, often through a nurse, which are considered non-statutory rehabilitation services. See e.g., In the Matter of the QRC Registration of David M. Scorse, 56 W.C.D. 18 (W.C.C.A. 1996). Disability case managers are generally employees or agents of the employer and insurer and not governed by the rules governing qualified rehabilitation consultants (QRCs). Id. at 27-28. Disability case management services, being non-statutory benefits, are outside the jurisdiction of workers’ compensation courts. Gibbs v. The Duluth Clinic, Ltd., 58 W.C.D. 23, 34 (W.C.C.A. 1998). Because neither the Office of Administrative Hearings nor this court have jurisdiction to rule on changes to disability case management services, employers and insurers providing such services may make changes to these services without filing either a medical or rehabilitation request or otherwise seeking approval from a workers’ compensation judge.

The employee agrees that there is no rule or statute governing changes to voluntarily-provided disability case management services. Despite this, the employee urges this court to “provide guidance” and/or “create policy” governing changes to disability case management services, particularly as to a change of case managers. Whether the employee’s suggestions might have merit as a question of policy, only the legislature has the power to modify the Workers’ Compensation Act. This court has no authority to advise employees or employers and insurers on the mechanics of voluntarily-provided non-statutory services.

Here, although the employer and insurer filed a rehabilitation request, doing so was unnecessary. The compensation judge indicated that there was no rule or statute governing a disputed change of case managers, but granted the employer and insurer’s request. Because neither the compensation judge nor this court have jurisdiction to rule on an employer and insurer’s decision to provide disability case management services, including a change of case managers, we vacate the compensation judge’s findings and order and dismiss the employer and insurer’s rehabilitation request.