Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Where a Minnesota chiropractor received a notice indicating that he had the right to file an intervention request in a workers' compensation claim -- the chiropractor had provided some $9,000 in medical service to the claimant -- but who took no action to intervene, could not subsequently seek payment from the injured worker's settlement with the employer and its carrier, held the Supreme Court of Minnesota. The Court said the chiropractor could not collaterally attack the settlement; only an intervenor could so proceed. Since the chiropractor had not pursued intervention, he was not an "intervenor."
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Koehnen v. Flagship Marine Co., 2020 Minn. LEXIS 368 (Aug. 12, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.