KRISTOPHER HUMBLE, Employee/Petitioner, v. N. CENT. SERV., INC. and EMCASCO INS. CO., Employer-Insurer/Respondents.

The Award on Stipulation served and filed on November 7, 2023, is voidable and does not conform to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.  Accordingly, the award on stipulation is vacated.

On October 24, 2022, the employee, Kristopher Humble, sustained an injury while working in North Dakota for North Central Service, Inc., a Minnesota-based employer.  The employee was a resident of Oklahoma at the time of injury.  Following the injury, he filed a First Report of Injury (FROI) with North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI) on October 26, 2022.  (Ex. 1.)  The employee affirmed in the FROI that he had not filed a claim in another state and agreed that North Dakota law would determine all rights and obligations to and from the employee and WSI.^[1]

In a letter dated November 1, 2022, the employee was advised by WSI that his claim for workers’ compensation benefits was accepted.  (Ex. 2.)  WSI began paying indemnity and medical benefits to the employee beginning October 25, 2022.  The employee received medical treatment for his work injury from various providers including those located in North Dakota, Missouri, and Oklahoma.  (Ex. A.)

On December 22, 2022, the employee hired the law firm, Osterbauer, Harper & Furth, to represent him for his work injury.  (Ex. 3.)  The employee’s attorney initiated a proceeding in Minnesota with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI).  WSI was not served with the notice of appearance or the retainer agreement in the Minnesota proceeding.  (Id.)  On April 12, 2023, the employee filed a claim petition with DLI claiming proper jurisdiction in Minnesota under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3.  Counsel for the employee sent a notice to potential intervenors including WSI and medical providers in Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Missouri, on May 3, 2023. (Ex. A.)  WSI received a copy of the employee’s Minnesota claim petition on May 10, 2023.  (Ex. 4.) ^[2]

The employee participated in a telephone conversation with WSI on May 18, 2023, regarding his Minnesota claim.  (Ex. 5.)  He was told that his North Dakota benefits may need to be suspended if there was a claim pending in Minnesota.  On May 22, 2023, WSI again spoke with the employee regarding his Minnesota workers’ compensation claim.  WSI told the employee that his North Dakota disability and medical benefits would be suspended if he chose to pursue a claim in Minnesota.  (Ex. 5.)

In a letter addressed to the employee’s counsel dated June 21, 2023, a special assistant attorney general on behalf of WSI advised that the employee’s North Dakota claim had been accepted and WSI had paid $37,785.63 in workers’ compensation benefits to-date on his behalf.  (Ex. 7.)  WSI advised the employee’s counsel that, based upon the employee’s Minnesota workers’ compensation claim, his North Dakota claim had been suspended.  The employee’s counsel also received notice that N.D.C.C. § 65-05-29 allowed WSI to seek reimbursement of workers’ compensation paid to an employee who files a claim for benefits for the same injury in another state. WSI requested to be included in any settlement discussions and if not, WSI would initiate a civil action against the employee seeking repayment of the workers’ compensation benefits paid on his behalf. 

The parties settled the employee’s Minnesota workers’ compensation claims.  (Ex. 9.)  In the settlement, the parties agreed to resolve all claims for workers’ compensation benefits past, present, and future on a full, final, and complete basis, including medical and rehabilitation benefits.  The parties also stipulated that the employee had elected, and began receiving, workers’ compensation benefits, including temporary total disability and medical benefits from the State of North Dakota WSI and that OCOM Oklahoma Center for Orthopaedic & Multi-Specialty Surgery, Page Ambulance Services, and Northern Therapy & Rehabilitation, Inc., had been sent intervention notices.  The parties further agreed that the employee would hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the employer and insurer in any action brought by WSI or anyone acting on their behalf for benefits paid as a result of the October 24, 2022, injury, and that the interests of medical providers or payors which had failed to intervene after receiving an intervention notice were waived or extinguished.  WSI was not included in the stipulation for settlement.

After review and approval pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.521, subd. 2, a compensation judge signed an Award on Stipulation filed on November 7, 2023.  The award provided that the intervention claims of non-Minnesota entities, Southwest Orthopaedic & Reconstructive Specialists, PLLC, Alliance Health/Ponca Health Care, Life Flight/Air MedCare Network, Renee Young, Touchstone Imaging, WSI, Southwest Orthopaedic, OCOM Oklahoma Center for Orthopaedic & Multi-Specialty Surgery, Page Ambulance Services, and Northern Therapy & Rehabilitation, Inc., were quashed as a matter of law against the employer, insurer, and employee and those entities were barred from recovery due to their failure to intervene after due and adequate notice pursuant to Minn. R. 1415.1200, subp. 6, and Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 7.  (Ex. E.)

WSI addressed a letter to counsel for the parties on August 22, 2024, regarding its knowledge of the employee’s settlement of his Minnesota workers’ compensation claim.  Based upon North Dakota law, WSI requested that the employee reimburse the workers’ compensation benefits paid as a result of his claim at WSI in the amount of $39,384.20 and stated that a failure to reimburse WSI would result in the service of a civil action upon the employee.  (Ex. 13.)  Subsequently, WSI brought a civil action against the employee seeking reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits paid to and on behalf of the employee in the sum of $39,384.20 pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 65-05-05(2).  (Ex. F).

On September 17, 2025, the employee filed a petition to vacate and set aside the stipulation for settlement and award on stipulation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.461, asserting a mutual mistake of fact by the parties and alleging that the award failed to conform to the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA).

The employee argues that the award on stipulation should be vacated because it was entered into under a mutual mistake of fact material to the parties’ settlement.  He also argues that the award on stipulation is voidable and not in conformity with the WCA and exceeded the jurisdiction of the compensation judge.  In opposition to the petition to vacate the award, the employer and insurer maintain the award accurately reflects the parties’ settlement agreement, that the award only extinguished the procedural rights of WSI and out-of-state medical providers to intervene, that any mistake regarding the scope and terms of the stipulation were unilateral on the part of the employee, and that the stipulation for settlement was reasonable, fair, and in conformity with the WCA.

We determine that the award on stipulation for settlement is voidable because it does not conform with the WCA and grant the petition to vacate the award on stipulation.

Under Minn. Stat. § 176.461, the state legislature granted this court the authority to set aside a compensation judge’s award “for cause.”  “For cause” is limited to: (1) a mutual mistake of fact, (2) newly discovered evidence, (3) fraud, or (4) a substantial change in medical condition since the time of the award that was clearly not anticipated and could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the award.  Minn. Stat. § 176.461(b).

A mutual mistake of fact results when opposing parties both misapprehend some fact material to the claim.  Shelton v. Schwan’s Sales Enters., 53 W.C.D. 110, 113 (W.C.C.A. 1995), summarily aff’d (Minn. Sept. 5, 1995).  A unilateral mistake arising from an oversight by a party or a party’s attorney does not constitute a mutual mistake of fact for purposes of a petition to vacate.  Id. at 114.  We have also established that a mutual mistake of fact is inapplicable when a mistake of law was made by the parties.  Oredson v. Mesabi Elec., No. WC06-128 (W.C.C.A. Aug. 28, 2006).

The employee contends that the settlement reached by the parties applied only to workers’ compensation benefits following the suspension of payments by WSI, and did not include claims for past benefits.  Our review of the clear and unequivocal language of the stipulation for settlement does not support this position.  The terms of the stipulation reveal the clear intent of the parties was to fully, finally, and completely resolve the employee’s workers’ compensation claims past, present, and future for the injury on October 24, 2022.  (Ex. 9.)  Our examination of the settlement does not reveal any language limiting the closure of workers' compensation benefits in the stipulation for settlement to benefits paid only after the suspension of North Dakota benefits by WSI or to in-state medical providers only.

The asserted time limitation on the closure of the employee’s workers’ compensation benefits in the stipulation for settlement constitutes a unilateral, not mutual, misunderstanding by the employee preventing vacation of the award under Minn Stat. § 176.461(b).

The employee further argues that the employer and insurer received improper credit for the workers’ compensation benefits paid to the employee by WSI.  This position misinterprets existing law when an employee receives compensation from another jurisdiction for the same injury. An award or settlement obtained in another jurisdiction does not bar a successive award in Minnesota, even where the same condition or injury is the basis of both claims.  Rundberg v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, 51 W.C.D. 193, 206 (W.C.C.A. 1994) (citing Pierce v. Robert D. Pierce, Ltd., 363 N.W.2d 761, 762-63, 37 W.C.D. 514, 516 (Minn. 1985)), aff’d mem., 520 N.W.2d 747, 51 W.C.D. 208 (Minn. 1994).  In such cases, workers’ compensation benefits previously received by the employee, whether through an award, settlement, or voluntary payment in another jurisdiction, may be credited against the compensation awarded in this state to avoid any double recovery.  See Rundberg, 51 W.C.D. at 206.  This ostensible mistake is one of law and not fact, unilaterally made by the employee, and does not provide grounds to vacate the award under the Oredson decision.

The employee also asserts that the award on stipulation exceeds the authority and jurisdiction granted to a compensation judge and fails to conform with Minn. Stat. § 176.521, subd. 2, of the WCA.  We agree.

The jurisdiction of compensation judges and the WCCA is limited to questions of law and fact arising under the workers’ compensation laws of Minnesota.  Hale v. Viking Trucking Co., 654 N.W.2d 119, 123, 62 W.C.D. 701, 704 (Minn. 2002); Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5.  In this case, by including terms that were intended to extinguish the rights of WSI and out-of-state providers, the stipulation and award exceeded the jurisdictional limits of both the compensation judge and this court.^[3]  The WCCA “is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, restricted by statute to the construction and application of the Workers’ Compensation Act.”  Hagen v. Venem, 366 N.W.2d 280, 283, 37 W.C.D. 674, 678 (Minn. 1985); see also Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5 (the WCCA has jurisdiction over “questions of law and fact arising under the workers’ compensation laws of the state”).^[4]  The court’s “powers are plenary” in cases arising under the WCA, allowing this court to hear and determine the legal and factual questions presented in matters brought before the court.  Hagen, 366 N.W.2d at 283, 37 W.C.D. at 678.  This court is not authorized, however, “to consider questions of law arising under the workers’ compensation statutes of other states.”  Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc., 803 N.W.2d 365, 369, 71 W.C.D. 361, 368 (Minn. 2011).

In Hale, the supreme court noted with approval that the WCCA had stated, “neither a compensation judge nor the WCCA has ‘subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether an employee [is] entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in another state, whether those benefits were mistakenly or improperly paid, or to determine or impose a Minnesota remedy in the event that such benefits were improperly or mistakenly paid under another state’s law.’”  Hale, 654 N.W.2d at 124, 62 W.C.D. at 706 (quoting Rundberg, 51 W.C.D. at 204); see also Boothe v. TFE, 55 W.C.D. 353, 355-56 (W.C.C.A. 1996).  The WCCA also determined that neither a compensation judge nor this court has jurisdiction to extinguish the interests of out-of-state providers.  See Gruba v. Tradesman Int’l, Inc., 76 W.C.D. 297 (W.C.C.A. 2016); Milner v. Schwan Sales Enters., 59 W.C.D. 163 (W.C.C.A. 1999).  An award on stipulation is voidable and may be vacated where it is erroneous or founded on an irregularity.  Olsen v. Mackay/Minn. Envelope, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Dec. 12, 2012) (a stipulation for settlement which left medical expenses open for future claims could not close out Roraff fees for those claims) (citing Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205, 208 (Minn. 1973)).  Because, in this case, the award extinguishes the rights and interests of WSI and out-of-state medical providers, the award exceeds the subject matter jurisdiction granted to a compensation judge and therefore, is voidable.  See Minn. Stat. § 176.521, subd. 2.

Next, we determine whether the voidable award should be vacated and set aside.  The overriding principle when determining whether to set aside an award is fundamental fairness. Krebsbach v. Lake Lillian Coop. Creamery Ass’n, 350 N.W.2d 349, 36 W.C.D. 796 (Minn. 1984); Landon v. Donovan Constr. Co., 270 N.W.2d 15, 31 W.C.D. 135 (Minn. 1978); Wollschlager v. Standard Contr. Co., 300 Minn. 550, 220 N.W.2d 346, 27 W.C.D. 495 (1974).  However, unfairness alone is insufficient cause to vacate an award.  Fodness v. Standard Café, 41 W.C.D. 1054 (W.C.C.A. 1989).

In this case, the stipulation for settlement and award do not conform to the intent of the WCA.  Minn. Stat. § 176.521, subd. 2, states, “Settlements shall be approved only if the terms conform with this statute.  The parties to the agreement of settlement have the burden of proving the settlement is reasonable, fair, and in conformity with this chapter.”

This court has set out the following factors to determine whether a voidable award should be vacated:  “(1) whether the stipulation was reasonable, fair, and in conformity with the [WCA] at the time it was entered into; (2) whether the stipulation appears to fairly reflect the intent of the parties; (3) whether there is any prejudice to the parties; and (4) the equities involved.”  Sondrol v. Del Hayes & Sons, Inc., 47 W.C.D. 659, 666-67 (W.C.C.A. 1992).  

In this case, the parties to the stipulation for settlement expressly intended to extinguish the interests of WSI and the out-of-state medical providers, which was fundamental in settling the employee’s Minnesota claims and does not conform with the WCA.  Therefore, the petition to vacate the award on stipulation is granted and the award filed on November 7, 2023, is vacated.