Attorneys: C. Jeremy Lagasse, Benjamin M. Kline, Aaron Ferguson Law PLLC, Roseville, Minnesota, for relator. Kirk C. Thompson, Kirk C. Thompson Law Offices, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent Larry Horton. James S. Pikala, Emily A. LaCourse, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondents Aspen Waste System, Inc. and EMC Insurance Company.
Reversed and remanded to the compensation judge.
McKEIG, Justice
In an opinion filed November 30, 2022, we reversed and remanded the decision of the Worker’s Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA). See Lagasse v. Horton, 982 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 2022). The appeal concerned a section in the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act related to the award of attorney fees. As we summarized in our opinion:
This case involves a section in the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, chapter 176, related to the award of attorney fees. Respondent Larry Horton was injured during his employment with respondent Aspen Waste Systems (Aspen) and sought permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits through Aspen’s insurer, respondent EMC Insurance Company (the insurer). Horton retained relator C. Jeremy Lagasse to represent him in the matter. Lagasse now seeks contingent fees under Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(c) (2020). The compensation judge found that Lagasse was entitled to contingent fees under subdivision 1(c) and that Horton was entitled to partial reimbursement of fees under subdivision 7 of the same statute. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed both rulings. The WCCA recognized that the statutory right to a contingent fee applies only to “ ‘genuinely disputed claims or portions of claims,’ ” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(c)), and concluded that no genuine dispute existed between the parties. The WCCA thus correspondingly concluded that “[t]here is no basis for an award of fees to Mr. Lagasse on the undisputed facts of this case,” and reversed both the award of contingent fees under Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(c), as well as the partial reimbursement of fees to the employee under Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 7 (2020).
We hold that the WCCA incorrectly applied Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(c) and its standard of review, which required that the compensation judge’s award of contingent fees under subdivision 1(c) be upheld. We also hold that the compensation judge and the WCCA incorrectly applied Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 7. We therefore reverse the WCCA and remand to the compensation judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion as to Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 7.
Lagasse, 982 N.W.2d at 195–96. On December 13, 2022, relator C. Jeremy Lagasse filed a motion for fees and taxation of costs, which respondents Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. and EMC Insurance Company oppose.
Relator’s sole stated basis for attorney fees is Minn. Stat. § 176.511, subd. 5 (2022). But that provision only permits attorney fees when “an award of compensation is affirmed, or modified and affirmed, or an order disallowing compensation is reversed.” Id. (emphasis added). “Compensation” is defined under the Act as “includ[ing] all benefits provided by this chapter on account of injury or death.” Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 6a (2022). Here, no benefits were at issue—what was solely at issue in the appeal was contingency attorney fees. Moreover, as reflected by the court’s Order Regarding Attorney Fee Awards in Appeals From the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, No. ADM09- 8006 (Minn. filed Oct. 30, 2017), the attorney fee provision in Minn. Stat. § 176.511, subd. 5, is reserved for employees, not attorneys seeking fees. The motion for attorney fees related to this appeal fails.
Relator has also sought costs and disbursements totaling $977.50. For a workers’ compensation appeal to this court, “costs and disbursements shall be taxed as they are upon appeals in civil actions.” Minn. Stat § 176.511, subd. 4 (2022). Generally, a “prevailing party” shall recover costs and is allowed taxation of disbursements “necessarily paid or incurred” in an appeal. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 139.02. Relator is the prevailing party before the court, having obtained a reversal and remand, and is entitled to costs and disbursements. See Servin v. Servin, 345 N.W.2d 754, 759 (Minn. 1984) (“an appellant prevails if he secures a reversal or modification of the order or judgment from which an appeal is taken”). Respondent Horton made no objection, and the costs and disbursements are thus taxable against him.
The costs and disbursements are also taxable against respondents Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. and EMC Insurance Company. They argue that relator did not prevail against them when the only position they took “was that Compensation Judge Hartman erroneously applied Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 7, with which this Court agreed in its Decision.” They therefore argue that costs and disbursements cannot be taxed against them. But Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. and EMC Insurance Company in their appellate brief, while maintaining that the tax court erred, also argued “that the W.C.C.A.’s decision reversing the award of attorney fees and partial reimbursement of attorney fees to the Employee pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.081, be affirmed.” They argued that “the W.C.C.A.’s reversal of the compensation judge’s award of partial reimbursement of attorney fees pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 7 was appropriate and legally justified,” such that “the reversal of the award of partial reimbursement of attorney fees should be affirmed.” That is not what our court’s opinion did. Instead, we held that “neither the compensation judge nor the WCCA properly applied subdivision 7” and “therefore reverse[d] and remand[ed] for findings on the subdivision 7 fees.” The costs and disbursements may thus be recovered as against all respondents.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of relator C. Jeremy Lagasse for an award of attorney fees is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Appellate Court shall tax costs and disbursements in the amount of $977.50 in favor of relator Lagasse, as against all respondents.