ZENU MOKONNEN, Employee/Appellant, v. MASTERSON STAFFING SOLS. and MEADOWBROOK INS. GRP., Employer-Insurer/Respondents, and PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERVS, and GRP. HEALTH d/b/a HEALTHPARTNERS, Intervenors.

The employee appeals the compensation judge’s order dismissing her claim petition because of an award on stipulation approving a previous full, final, and complete settlement in this matter.  We affirm the dismissal of the petition.

Zenu Mokonnen, the employee, alleged she sustained a Gillette^[1] injury to her right arm, shoulder, and neck culminating on September 3, 2020, while working for the employer, Masterson Staffing Solutions.  The employee treated with Chiropractic Health & Wellness for her asserted work injuries.  The employer and its insurer denied primary liability.  The employee retained counsel and has been represented by counsel throughout these proceedings.

On December 23, 2020, the employee filed a claim petition and served notices to potential intervenors Chiropractic Health & Wellness and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED).  On February 17, 2021, the employer and insurer served intervention notices to potential intervenors Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and Chiropractic Health & Wellness Center.  On February 18, 2021, they also served an intervention notice to third-party payor HealthPartners Insurance, which declined to intervene on March 4, 2021. 

As of February 24, 2021, when her deposition was taken, the employee had not treated with any other physicians for the work injuries.  The employer and insurer sought medical records from all of the employee’s known prior medical providers, including HealthPartners Clinics, but learned that the employee last treated at HealthPartners Clinics in 2019, before the alleged work injury.

On June 28, 2021, after a settlement conference, the parties agreed to settle the matter. ^[2]  A notice of case settlement was filed on June 29, 2021.  On the same day, the employee attended an appointment at HealthPartners Clinics and was referred to Park Nicollet Clinic’s occupational medicine department, where she was seen on July 1, 2021.  The employee did not notify her attorney or counsel for the employer and insurer about either of these appointments.  In response to a July 2, 2021, email, HealthPartners Insurance replied that it had no interest in the parties’ settlement.

In the stipulation for settlement, the parties expressly agreed to a full, final, and complete settlement of all past, present, and future claims, including medical expenses.  The stipulation specifically stated that “the parties are unaware of any medical providers or other entities that have asserted [a]n intervention claim in this matter.”  It also stated that “[n]o other third parties are known to have an interest in the outcome of the matter.”  In addition, the following statement was included, underlined and in bold type: “No claims of any kind whatsoever remain open under this settlement agreement without exception.”  (Ex. B.)

The settlement called for payment of $8,000 to the employee, as well as $2,000 to her counsel for full satisfaction of all claims for attorney fees.  In the stipulation, the employee acknowledged that she had read and understood the settlement agreement, that her attorney reviewed and explained the terms of the settlement with her, and that she fully understood and comprehended the terms of the agreement. The employer and insurer reserved all defenses available pursuant to the workers’ compensation statute, rules, or case law.  The stipulation for settlement was fully executed by the parties on August 3, 2021.

The stipulation was approved by a compensation judge and an Award on Stipulation was served and filed on August 9, 2021.^[3]  In the award, the compensation judge determined that Chiropractic Health & Wellness Center had been properly placed on notice of its right to intervene and that its failure to intervene in a timely manner was prejudicial to the settling parties, resulting in its potential intervention interest being extinguished pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 2(a).  The interests of DEED, DHS, and HealthPartners Insurance were not addressed in the award.

At some point after the award had been issued, the employee notified her attorney that she had been billed for treatment received at HealthPartners Clinics on June 29, 2021, and at Park Nicollet Clinic on July 1, 2021.  The record before us discloses no communication from counsel to inform the compensation judge of the employee’s treatment and outstanding bills with HealthPartners Clinics and Park Nicollet.  Instead, the employee filed a claim petition on November 2, 2021, seeking payment for these expenses, and also served intervention notices on Group Health Plans d/b/a HealthPartners, Inc., and Park Nicollet Health Services.  HealthPartners Clinics filed a motion to intervene claiming $98.00 for services provided on June 29, 2021, and Park Nicollet filed a motion to intervene claiming $248.86 for services provided on July 1, 2021.  In these motions to intervene, both filed on January 19, 2022, there is a notation that “HP” paid $47.75 toward the June 29, 2021, billing and $153.19 for the July 1, 2021, billing.  HealthPartners Insurance has not filed a motion to intervene for any payments it made to these intervenors.  

On November 3, 2021, the employer and insurer filed a motion to dismiss the claim petition based on the stipulation for settlement.  The employee filed an objection to the dismissal motion on November 4, 2021. 

The employer and insurer’s motion to dismiss the claim petition was addressed at a telephone hearing before the compensation judge on February 7, 2022.  The employee, the employer and insurer, HealthPartners Clinics, and Park Nicollet were all represented by counsel at the hearing.  In an April 19, 2022, order, the compensation judge noted the employee had not notified her attorney of the treatment at issue and that the stipulation she signed stated that no third parties had a known interest in the matter.  Because the settlement was full, final, and complete and included past, present, and future medical treatment, the compensation judge dismissed the employee’s November 2, 2021, claim petition.  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).

The employee asserts that the compensation judge erred by dismissing her claim petition without an evidentiary hearing that afforded an opportunity to complete discovery and present formal evidence in a courtroom setting.  The compensation judge ruled on the employer and insurer’s motion and dismissed the employee’s claim petition following a telephone conference attended by the parties and counsel.  Counsel for the medical providers HealthPartners Clinics and Park Nicollet were included in the proceedings. 

When considering a motion to dismiss, a compensation judge is not necessarily required to schedule a formal hearing.  See Minn. R. 1420.2250, subp. 3.  A formal hearing may be necessary, however, where disputed factual issues must be resolved to determine the merits of the motion,^[4] in order to provide notice to the parties and to afford a sufficient record to allow appellate review.  See, e.g., Pederson v. Carter Day Co., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Jan. 3, 1994).  On the other hand, where no material issues of fact must be determined in deciding the merits of a motion to dismiss, a telephone conference may be sufficient.  See, e.g., Jurva v. M.A. Mortenson Cos., 73 W.C.D. 833 (W.C.C.A. 2013).

On appeal, this court has also considered whether the record is sufficient for us to “effectively review the factual and legal issues in this dispute.”  Albert v. Dungarvin Minn., No. WC10-5056 (W.C.C.A. Aug. 10, 2010) (dismissal of claim petition following a telephone conference vacated and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing where there was a material factual issue which this court was unable to effectively review).

In her brief, the appellant contends that there are unresolved questions of fact: specifically, whether the employee’s failure to disclose the additional treatment prior to the issuance of an award on stipulation was “willful;” whether HealthPartners reasonably should have discovered that the treatment it provided was related to a work injury, and intervened before the award on stipulation was issued; and whether an email sent to HealthPartners by respondents on July 2, 2021, constitutes sufficient notice of a right to intervene.  None of these alleged factual issues is material to the determination of whether the stipulation for settlement closed out the benefits sought in the employee’s claim petition.^[5]

Because of the absence of a material factual issue, and in light of the following additional considerations, we conclude that there is no basis to vacate and remand for an evidentiary hearing.  The special term hearing was held more than three months after the employer and insurer filed the motion for dismissal and there is no indication in the record that the employee objected to the form of the hearing on the motion before it was held.  Exhibits were submitted by the parties with their pleadings including portions of the employee’s deposition, the executed stipulation for settlement, and the issued award.  The judge’s dismissal order included a memorandum.  The transcript of the hearing and the record are available for this court to review.  Under the circumstances of this case, the hearing was procedurally sufficient to allow this court to review the compensation judge’s order.

In the alternative, the employee argues that a delay in filing of the compensation judge’s order in this matter should result in another hearing.  This case was heard before the compensation judge on February 7, 2022, but the order for dismissal was not filed until April 19, 2022.  The employee contends that because the order was issued more than 60 days after the hearing, it violated the statutory requirement in Minn. Stat. § 176.371^[6] and entitles the employee to a full evidentiary hearing.  We disagree.

In Meysembourg v. Univ. of Minn., No. WC10-5130 (W.C.C.A. Dec. 7, 2010), this court considered whether this statute provides a remedy to the parties when a decision is not filed within 60 days.  We noted that the statute provides only that the salary of a compensation judge may not be paid unless all decisions of that judge are issued within the prescribed time limits and concluded that the intent of the statute is to promote the prompt determination of all matters pending before a compensation judge.  We held that the statute provided “no remedy to a party if a decision is not issued within the prescribed period.”  Here, as in Meysembourg, we conclude that the post-hearing delay in issuing the order does not provide a basis to require another hearing.

The claim petition at issue before the compensation judge involved claims for payment of medical expenses incurred after the parties settled the matter and before the award on stipulation was issued.  The claim petition was filed months after the award on stipulation was filed.  In executing the settlement agreement, the employee resolved all claims past, present and future relating to the claimed Gillette injury to her right arm, right shoulder, or neck culminating on September 3, 2020, for workers’ compensation benefits, including all medical treatment expenses.

A workers’ compensation settlement is valid where it has been executed in writing and signed by the parties.  Minn. Stat. § 176.521, subd. 1(a).  In this case, there is no dispute that the stipulation was signed by the employee and attorneys representing the parties by August 3, 2021, and otherwise complies with the statute.  The stipulation appears to be a valid agreement, and we find no basis in the record before us to find otherwise.  A settlement is effective and binding after the stipulation for settlement is approved where required and an award on stipulation is issued by a compensation judge.  Alvord v. Hoffman Eng’g Co., 55 W.C.D. 47, 54-55 (W.C.C.A. 1996), summarily aff’d (Minn. July 18, 1996); Minn. Stat. § 176.521, subds. 1(b), 2.   Here, the award was issued on August 9, 2021, and therefore, the settlement was valid and binding at the time the claim petition at issue was filed on November 2, 2021.  Compare Molstad v. City of St. Louis Park, slip op. (W.C.C.A. May 6, 2003) (where medical bills were at issue before a compensation judge at the time the parties reached a settlement, but were decided by the judge before the corresponding award on stipulation was issued, the matter was unresolved at the time of the decision and a justiciable controversy still existed).

In this case, once the award on stipulation was issued, all of the employee’s past, present and future claims from the work injury were resolved and no justiciable controversies relating to the employee’s claims remained.  “The existence of a justiciable controversy is a prerequisite to adjudication.”  Izaak Walton League of Am. Endowment, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Nat. Res., 312 Minn. 587, 589, 252 N.W.2d 852, 854 (1977); see also Grove v. United Hosp., No. WC05-129 (W.C.C.A. July 5, 2005).  Whether a justiciable controversy exists may be raised on the court’s own motion since it is essential to a court’s exercise of jurisdiction.  Makitalo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., slip op. (W.C.C.A. May 9, 1995) (citing Izaak Walton, 312 Minn. at 589, 252 N.W.2d at 854).  All of the employee’s claims for disability, rehabilitation, and medical treatment had been settled by the parties in a full, final, and complete resolution of the employee’s claims.  In the absence of a valid claim for medical benefits made in the claim petition at issue, there was nothing for the compensation judge to consider, and the judge properly dismissed the employee’s claim petition on the basis that it did not set forth an actionable claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.   Accordingly, we affirm the judge’s dismissal of the claim petition.