State News : Minnesota

Jurgenson v. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc, No. A24-0507 (Minn. June 25, 2025)

The issue in this case was whether a contingent attorney fee above the statutory cap must be approved if the parties do not object to it.

The employee’s attorney requested $30,000 in fees from a $150,000 settlement, $4,000 above the statutory $26,000 cap set under Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2022). Although the parties stipulated to the fee, the compensation judge approved only the capped amount, denying the excess fee. On appeal, the WCCA affirmed. The employee’s attorney further appealed, raising multiple arguments including a claim that the statutory cap violated the Contracts Clause of the Minnesota Constitution.

The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected these arguments and fully affirmed the trial court and WCCA, holding that the 2024 amendment increasing the attorney fee cap did not apply retroactively; that judges are not required to approve excess fees, even when unopposed; and that the fee cap does not violate the Contracts Clause.

This decision reinforces judicial discretion in evaluating requests for attorney fees and upholds the constitutionality of Minnesota’s attorney fee statute in workers’ compensation cases.

Simonson v. Douglas Cnty., No. A24-1309, 2025 WL 1185074 (Minn. Apr. 16, 2025)

In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed that employees seeking permanent total disability (PTD) benefits beyond age 67 must rebut the statutory retirement presumption under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Konneh v. Sundog Enters., LLC, 2025 WL 1657618 (Minn. WCCA May 2025)

The WCCA held that lay testimony and medical records alone may be sufficient to establish causation in cases involving “commoner afflictions,” such as temporary low back injuries. Relying on precedent from Bender v. Dongo Tool Co., 509 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 1993), and Carroll v. Univ. of Minn., slip op. (W.C.C.A. May 4, 1999), the court allowed the compensation judge to rely on lay expertise absent a formal medical opinion. Employers should be aware that even in the absence of expert testimony, credible lay evidence may support injury claims involving everyday ailments.

Brunner v. Post Consumer Brands, No. WC24-6569 (Minn. WCCA Jan. 15, 2025)
This case reaffirmed that an employee’s right to assert a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses is not extinguished by a provider’s failure to intervene under Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 2. Employers and insurers must be prepared to defend against medical expense claims brought directly by injured workers, even after a provider’s intervention rights have lapsed.