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, the employer/insurer pays the attorney fee. Heaton fees are the same principle applied to rehabilitation disputes (like fights over QRC services or retraining).

The framework now lives in Minn. Stat. § 176.081 alongside the standard contingent-fee rules. The practical effect for injured workers is significant and under-communicated: in a fight about a denied MRI, surgery, or rehab plan, hiring a lawyer frequently costs you nothing: the fee is paid by the insurer on top of the benefit, not out of your pocket.

This is also why "I can’t afford a lawyer" is usually wrong in Minnesota comp: consultations are free, wage-loss fees are contingent and capped, and the two most common dispute types often carry insurer-paid fees.