SUPREME COURT OPINION SUMMARY - Brunner V. Post Consumer Brands

PAULA KAY BRUNNER, Respondent, v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS and GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Relators.

SUPREME COURT – AUGUST 6, 2025
No. A25-0225
WCCA No. WC24-6569

Paula Kay Brunner worked as a packaging operator for Post Consumer Brands and developed a Gillette-type injury to her left shoulder that culminated in January 2022. She underwent medical treatment and surgery, missed time from work, and received short-term and long-term disability benefits. After recovering from surgery, she returned to her pre-injury job in November 2023.

Although the employer initially admitted the shoulder condition was work-related, it later denied the claim based on a medical opinion disputing work causation. As a result of the denial, the employee’s group health insurer, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, paid more than $31,000 in medical expenses related to the shoulder condition. Anthem notified the parties of its payments and asserted a right to reimbursement if the claim was found compensable, but it did not file a formal motion to intervene.

The employee filed a claim petition seeking wage loss and medical benefits and served notice on potential intervenors, including Anthem. At hearing, the parties stipulated that the medical treatment was reasonable and necessary. The compensation judge found that the employee sustained a compensable Gillette-type injury but concluded that because Anthem failed to timely intervene, its interest was extinguished and the employee could not seek direct payment of the medical expenses Anthem had paid. The compensation judge ordered that Anthem could not seek reimbursement from any party. The employee appealed.

The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the employee could pursue a direct claim for medical expenses and that Anthem’s reimbursement interest was not extinguished. The employer and insurer appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that an employee may bring a direct claim for medical expenses related to a compensable work injury even when those expenses were paid by the employee’s health insurer while compensability was disputed and even when the health insurer failed to timely intervene. The court reaffirmed that an employee’s right to seek payment of reasonable and necessary medical expenses is a freestanding substantive right under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite the extinguishment of Anthem’s intervenor interest, the Court held that the workers’ compensation insurer was still statutorily required under Minn. Stat. § 176.191, subd. 3, to reimburse Anthem for the medical expenses it paid once the injury was found compensable. The obligation to reimburse the health insurer flows from the employer’s underlying obligation to pay medical expenses for a compensable injury and does not depend on intervention.

Summary prepared by Attorney Brian Rosenblatt