Roraff Fees (and Heaton Fees)

Roraff fees answer a structural problem: winning a medical dispute produces a surgery, not a pot of money to take a contingent fee from. In Roraff v. State (Minn. 1980), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that when an attorney successfully litigates a medical-benefit dispute, additional employer- or insurer-paid fees may apply rather than having the full fee come from the employee’s monetary recovery. Heaton fees are the same principle applied to rehabilitation disputes (like fights over QRC services or retraining). Current § 176.081 treats the contingent monetary-benefit fee as presumed adequate unless the attorney shows it is not.

The framework now lives in Minn. Stat. § 176.081 alongside the standard contingent-fee rules. The contingent monetary-benefit fee is presumed adequate to cover simultaneously disputed medical or rehab issues. Additional employer- or insurer-paid fees can apply when that fee is inadequate, or when the benefit’s dollar value is not reasonably ascertainable.

Consultations are free at most firms, and wage-loss fees are contingent and capped. Whether a medical or rehab fight produces an extra insurer-paid fee depends on what else is disputed and how the case is structured.