MN Legislature Passes New First Responder Work Comp PTSD Bill

Great news for Minnesota’s first responders! A bill has been passed by both the House and Senate, and is expected to be signed by the Governor, that adds additional workers’ compensation rights for our state’s first responders who are suffering from mental illness.

House Bill HF 3873 and the companion Bill in the Senate SF3420 have both passed with overwhelming support, and the bill is expected to be signed by Governor Dayton. The portion of the bill as it relates to first responders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) will take effect January 1, 2019.

This bill has been in the works for a few years now, but finally had enough support to pass. While it won’t necessarily have a significant impact on people who are currently in the Minnesota workers’ compensation system, we expect that it will make a major difference to those who find themselves struggling with work-related PTSD in the future.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a major problem amongst Minnesota’s first responders. Our state’s first responders see and experience the worst of humanity. They are on the front lines when it comes to dealing with violent crimes, child abuse, medical emergencies, fatal accidents, and death. It should come as no surprise that repeated exposure to this kind of trauma puts our first responders at risk for developing PTSD. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a devastating condition that affects a person’s ability to process stressors. The symptoms can pervade every area of life – from work to home life.

There is effective help out there for people suffering from PTSD. But, for our state’s first responders, historically, there have been barriers to getting access to this help. Hopefully, this bill will reduce the barriers to accessing help.

Until October 1, 2013, Minnesota work comp law did not recognize post-traumatic stress disorder as a compensable injury. This meant that an individual with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder – no matter how valid the diagnosis, and no matter how disabling the condition – was ineligible for workers’ compensation benefits.

Our legislature finally took action and passed legislation recognizing post-traumatic stress disorder as a compensable injury beginning October 1, 2013. Since that time, Meuser Law Office, P.A. has helped hundreds of our state’s first responders suffering from PTSD navigate the complexities of the workers’ compensation system.

As the law has developed in this area, one thing has become very clear – too many of our state’s first responders are being denied Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits at the outset. While in our experience, some workers’ compensation insurers have been better than others in accepting primary liability on post-traumatic stress disorder claims, we estimate that approximately 75% of these claims involving police officers and firefighters are denied at the outset. Notwithstanding an initial denial of liability, Meuser Law Office, P.A. has an excellent track record of getting good results on these types of cases. It’s not always easy or straightforward, and it can be very difficult emotionally for an individual suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to go through the process of litigation. We are hopeful this new first responder PTSD bill will change that.

The Minnesota bill that was just passed creates a statutory presumption of work-relatedness for certain classes of workers, who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Here is the relevant text:

If, preceding the date of disablement or death, an employee who was employed on active duty as: a licensed police officer; a firefighter; a paramedic; an emergency medical technician; a licensed nurse employed to provide emergency medical services outside of a medical facility; a public safety dispatcher; an officer employed by the state or a political subdivision at a corrections, detention, or secure treatment facility; a sheriff or full-time deputy sheriff of any county; or a member of the Minnesota State Patrol is diagnosed with a mental impairment as defined in paragraph (d), and had not been diagnosed with the mental impairment previously, then the mental impairment is presumptively an occupational disease and shall be presumed to have been due to the nature of employment. This presumption may be rebutted by substantial factors brought by the employer or insurer. Any substantial factors that are used to rebut this presumption and that are known to the employer or insurer at the time of the denial of liability shall be communicated to the employee on the denial of liability. The mental impairment is not considered an occupational disease if it results from a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, layoff, demotion, promotion, termination, retirement, or similar action taken in good faith by the employer.

This provision will only apply to individuals with a date of injury on or after January 1, 2019, but it should hopefully result in more individuals being approved at the outset for workers’ compensation benefits.

This bill specifically includes the following individuals for additional protections under the Minnesota workers’ compensation act:

• Licensed police officers
• Firefighters
• Paramedics
• EMTs
• Licensed nurses employed to provide emergency medical services outside of a medical facility
• Public safety dispatchers
• Officers employed by the state or a political subdivision at a corrections, detention, or secure treatment facility
• Sheriffs, full-time deputy sheriffs
• Members of the State Patrol

In theory, under this statute, an employer/insurer must demonstrate a “substantial factor” to overcome the statutory presumption of work-relatedness. We anticipate that despite this new statutory presumption, employers/insurers will still fight PTSD cases, by alleging 1) that the diagnosis isn’t actually PTSD, 2) that the PTSD is due to something non-work-related, or 3) that if the person has PTSD, that it’s a temporary condition. Even though we don’t think this statutory change will eliminate all litigation on post-traumatic stress disorder in cases involving Minnesota’s first responders, we think it’s a big step in the right direction to helping those individuals suffering from PTSD overcome barriers to accessing early, appropriate medical and financial care.

If you or someone you know is a Minnesota first responder, police officer or firefighter suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, Meuser Law Office, P.A. can help you understand your rights. The knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. will help you navigate the system and help you obtain access to a variety of resources and benefits with compassionate, expert legal counsel. Contact us for a free confidential, no-obligation consultation. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Jen Yackley Presents at the 2018 Workers’ Compensation Institute

Jen Yackley, of Meuser Law Office, P.A., was honored to be invited to present this year as a faculty member at the 2018 Workers’ Compensation Institute hosted by Minnesota Continuing Legal Education.

Jen and defense attorney Mark Kleinschmidt of Cousineau, Waldhauser and Kieselbach, P.A, sat on the same side of the table for a change to present to their peers on the topic of Landmines in Drafting Stipulations for Settlement, from both a plaintiff attorney’s perspective, and a defense attorney’s perspective.

When a Minnesota workers’ compensation case settles, the settlement is memorialized in a special type of contract called a Stipulation for Settlement, which sets forth the terms of the agreement. This type of contract is unique in that it requires a Workers’ Compensation Judge to review and approve the contract. Jen and Mark discussed ways to avoid stipulation drafting issues that might cause a judge to not approve a Stipulation for Settlement. They also discussed issues that come up in terms of ambiguity in a Stipulation for Settlement. The goal of drafting a Stipulation for Settlement – or any contract for that matter – is to ensure that it accurately reflects the agreement of the parties. You don’t want an issue to come up years later leading to a dispute regarding what the parties intended when they settled. Jen and Mark also discussed issues in drafting a Stipulation for Settlement regarding third party rights, such as intervenors, government agencies, and Medicare.

Settlements in the Minnesota workers’ compensation system are extremely common, and there are many different ways to approach settlement of a workers’ compensation case. Even after the parties get to “yes;” however, it’s important that the Stipulation for Settlement is carefully drafted to accurately reflect the agreement of the parties, and to protect an injured worker’s future rights.

Jen’s broad deep knowledge of the nuanced areas of Minnesota workers’ compensation law make her an excellent advocate on complex cases. For a free, no obligation to learn more about your rights under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Fired for Cause: The Complex Issue of Misconduct and PTSD in Law Enforcement

Allegations of misconduct are not necessarily a barrier to asserting a claim for workers’ compensation and PERA/MSRS Duty Disability benefits for Minnesota police officers and firefighters.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is finally getting recognition as a serious problem for Minnesota’s law enforcement officers. Since October 2013, Minnesota worker’ compensation law now recognizes PTSD as a compensable injury, as does PERA and MSRS for purposes of Duty Disability benefits and Continuation of Healthcare Benefits in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. Meuser Law Office, P.A. has been litigating PTSD claims for over a decade, and our track record speaks for itself.

One issue that occasionally arises in claims involving PTSD is allegations of misconduct, administrative leave, internal investigations, and disciplinary actions. All too often, police officers suffering silently with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder don’t seek help until there is a crisis. For some there is an alcohol abuse problem and the officer tests positive for alcohol at work. Some officers are involved in an alcohol-related criminal issue, such as a DWI. Unfortunately for some, there are allegations of domestic abuse or infidelity. Sadly, sometimes an officer has attempted or threatened suicide. Too often due to the symptoms of PTSD, an officer begins to make mistakes – big or small – on the job, and they suffer discipline as a result.

Post-traumatic stress disorder causes a variety of symptoms that can seriously interfere with an officer’s ability to effectively and safely perform his or her job. For example:

• Sleep disturbance, including difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep – lack of sleep may affect job performance.
• Nightmares – can cause sleep disruption.
• Avoidance of places, people, and activities that are reminders of traumatic events – may result in an officer delaying or avoiding performing certain job duties that cause symptoms.
• Hypervigilance and exaggerated startle response – an increased state of arousal that is out of proportion to the threat. This can cause a variety of problems, such as outbursts of anger causing problems with co-workers or supervisors. Most problematic, hypervigilance can cause an officer to over-react in response to a threat, leading to allegations of excessive use of force or abusive conduct. Meuser Law Office, P.A. also believes that hypervigilance and exaggerated startle response may also play a role in controversial shooting situations. 
• Difficulty concentrating – concentration problems can result in making mistakes in writing reports, missing evidence, or worst-case, overlooking a dangerous situation.
• Feelings of detachment or estrangement from others – can cause feelings of being cut off from family, friends, and colleagues, which can cause interpersonal work problems.
• Physiological reactions to reminders of the traumatic events – PTSD can cause stress-related physical symptoms, such as nausea, stomach upset, and headaches. It can also cause panic-attack-like symptoms such as rapid heart-beat, tremors and shaking, excessive sweating, and tunnel vision. An officer suffering serious physical stress symptoms in the midst of responding to a call may be physically incapable of carrying out his or her duties.
• Irritable or aggressive behavior – changes in behavior can have a serious negative impact on an officer’s home and work life, and can result in breakdown of a marriage, interpersonal issues with colleagues or superiors, or allegations of abusive behavior or excessive use of force during interactions with the public.
• Engaging in self-destructive or risk-taking behaviors – “bad” behavior and poor decision-making is unfortunately, a common symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder. This can be excessive alcohol use or abuse, marital infidelity, driving at excessive speeds and engaging in risky driving, pathological gambling, responding to calls without wearing a vest, taking unnecessary risks during calls, or other means of “self-sabotage.” These behaviors sometimes result in disciplinary action.

All too often, officers who are suffering from mental health issues do not seek help until these symptoms cause a serious problem at home at work, placing their family or livelihood at risk. In hindsight, it’s often evident that the officer going through a disciplinary issue has been having issues for years, and that the behavior that resulted in discipline was due to a serious untreated mental health condition.

An officer who is subject to disciplinary action, including internal affairs investigations, administrative leave, probation or suspension, or even termination, and who is also suffering symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder or another work-related mental health condition may still be eligible for benefits, including but not limited to, PERA/MSRS Duty Disability benefits, 299A.465 healthcare continuation benefits, and/or workers’ compensation benefits.

Meuser Law Office, P.A. has successfully represented dozens of police officers suffering from PTSD who found themselves subject to discipline, including administrative leave, investigations, suspension, and even termination. Often, in addition to securing Duty Disability benefits and workers’ compensation benefits on behalf of the officer, we are able to assist in coordinating a separation agreement with the officer’s employer to avoid a formal termination for misconduct on terms that are favorable to the officer. You don’t have to go through this process on your own.

If you or someone you know is a Minnesota police officer or firefighter facing discipline for misconduct based on behavior that may be the result of a mental health condition, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. The knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. can help make the process easier to navigate. Contact us today for a confidential, free, no-obligation consultation by calling 1-877-746-5680.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

299A.465 Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits and Cash Waivers

In Minnesota, a police officer or firefighter who suffers from a physical or mental condition that limits their ability to perform the normal duties of their position for a period of at least one year, and where that condition is the direct result of an injury or illness arising out of or incurred during the performance of inherently dangerous duties, is eligible for Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Plan Duty Disability benefits. In turn, a police officer or firefighter who is determined to be eligible for PERA Duty Disability benefits is also eligible for Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. State Troopers, DNR Officers, and BCA Officers who are determined to be eligible for Duty Disability benefits under the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) State Patrol Plan are also eligible for this benefit.

Minnesota Statute 299A.465 Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits

This statute provides, in relevant part, that any peace officer or firefighter who is deemed to be eligible for Duty Disability benefits, is also entitled to Continuation of Health Insurance benefits. In other words, the officer or firefighter’s employer shall continue to provide health insurance coverage for the officer or firefighter, and the officer or firefighter’s dependents if the officer or firefighter had family coverage at the time of injury. The employer is required to continue paying the employer’s contribution for said health insurance coverage until the officer reaches, or would have reached age 65, in the case of dependent coverage.

Given the ever-rising cost of health insurance, this benefit can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for a disabled police officer or firefighter. It also means that it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for the officer or firefighter’s employer. Notably, an employer does have the right to contest via administrative contested case hearing whether an officer or firefighter is eligible for these benefits, and Meuser Law Office, P.A. is frequently involved in litigation on this type of case.

Health Insurance Cash Waiver Incentive Plans

Health insurance costs have risen exponentially over the last several years, and there is increased uncertainty in the markets given the political maneuvering over subsidized insurance. Some public employers have sought to reduce their health insurance costs by offering their employees incentivized alternatives to health insurance coverage through their group health plans. One such alternative that we are seeing more and more frequently are cash waiver plans.

Cash waiver plans can be offered in a variety of ways. In general, they offer an employee the option of waiving health insurance coverage in exchange for some form of monetary benefit. For example, we have handled cases involving:

• An annual cash benefit offered as an alternative to family coverage for those employees who are eligible for family coverage, but choose to waive it
• A monthly cash benefit, paid as an increase in the employee’s monthly salary, for those employees who waive single coverage and are able to demonstrate coverage elsewhere
• A monthly employer contribution towards a Health Care Savings account on a high deductible plan where the employer required two married officers to waive their respective single coverage plans, and enroll in a family plan

Cash waiver plans invariably also provide that if the person waiving coverage loses their alternative coverage elsewhere, they will have the option of re-enrolling in the employer’s group health plan. These plans also generally allow an employee to opt out of the cash waiver plan and to re-enroll in the employer’s group health plan during annual enrollment.

These types of plans are perfectly legal, and they unequivocally save an employer substantial amounts of money in the form of reduced premium costs for insuring their employees. Since they come with a cash incentive – sometimes worth several hundred dollars a month – it can be financially advantageous for an employee to elect coverage under these types of plans.

Litigation and Case Law Update

The problem with these cash waiver plans; however, is the uncertainty that they generate in the context of statutory § 299A.465 continuation of health insurance coverage eligibility if an officer or firefighter loses his or her job due to a work-related injury. We have been involved in litigation on several cases where the employer has argued that an officer or firefighter who had been enrolled in a cash waiver plan at the time of injury gave up their right to continuation of health insurance benefits under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 and are therefore not eligible for any ongoing cash payment or insurance coverage.

Unfortunately, the statue itself says nothing about how the law is to apply in this circumstance, but thus far, the courts who have heard cases involving cash waivers have generally held that the policy reasons behind § 299A.465 – providing access to health insurance coverage to disabled police officers and firefighters – should guide how the law applies in these cases. Here’s how a few of these cases have been determined in the courts so far:

• Administrative law decision – An officer with PTSD primarily due to traumatic incidents experienced while employed by a major metropolitan city, subsequently became employed by a smaller city in outstate Minnesota. The symptoms did not become disabling until the officer had been employed by the smaller city police department for a few years. The officer was determined to be eligible for PERA Duty Disability benefits, and PERA ordered the current department to pay health insurance. The current employer appealed and joined the officer’s prior employer to the litigation. Both cities argued about the cause of the PTSD – in other words, which of the employers was “more” responsible for the officer’s PTSD.  But, the current employer also pointed out that the officer opted for a cash waiver benefit and waived health insurance coverage, and that therefore, they were not required to continue offering insurance. The current employer moved for summary judgment on this issue. After a summary judgment hearing, the administrative law judge held that the employee electing a cash waiver plan rather than health insurance coverage did not waive eligibility for insurance, and that the employer was required to continue to offer the opportunity to enroll in their group health plan. The parties, including both of the officer’s employers, subsequently reached a settlement on a cash basis.
• District court decision – An officer with PTSD had been deemed to be eligible for Duty Disability benefits by PERA. The employer enrolled the officer in single coverage and had continued said coverage for a number of years. Prior to termination from employment, the officer had elected to waive eligibility for family coverage in exchange for an annual cash incentive. The employer argued the officer was not entitled to either the cash payment on an ongoing basis, or the family coverage. The District Court held that the City was not required to pay the cash payment, as Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 did not specifically describe cash payments as “insurance;” however, the Court did hold that the City was required to offer the officer the opportunity to elect family coverage, rather than just single coverage.
• Consolidated district court cases – three cases involving police officers and firefighters from the same employer were consolidated for the district court to address the cash waiver issue. In all three of the cases, the officer or firefighter had enrolled in a cash waiver plan prior to their disabling injuries, meaning they received a monthly cash payment from the employer rather than health insurance coverage through the City. There was no dispute that all three were disabled as the result of injuries in-the-line-of-duty. The City argued that by having waived coverage in exchange for the cash incentive, each of the employees had given up their right to claim continuation of health insurance benefits in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. In this heavily contested case, both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court found in favor of the disabled officers and firefighter. The judge found that the disabled officers and firefighters had not waived their rights to benefits in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 but left it up to the employer as to whether to pay the cash incentive or to offer the officers and firefighters the opportunity to enroll in coverage.

If you are a Minnesota police officer or firefighter who has experienced a significant work-related injury, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation case evaluation and consultation. The knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. take the time with each client to help determine which benefits under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act you are entitled as well as discuss PERA Duty Disability benefits and Healthcare Continuation Benefits under Minnesota Statute § 299A.465 and help guide you through the complex process to ensure your rights are protected. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

‘Tis the Season! Remember, Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Benefits are Non-Taxable

The clock is ticking! Remember, this year’s tax filing deadline is April 17, 2018. If you’re doing your taxes on your own, you may be wondering if you need to report Minnesota workers’ compensation wage loss, permanent partial disability, or a settlement received in 2017. The answer is NO!

You are not required to pay income taxes on your work comp benefits, regardless of whether you received them on a weekly basis or as a lump sum settlement. Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits are considered to be compensation for a personal injury under the Federal Tax Code and are therefore non-taxable.

Other types of benefits that are payable as a result of a work-related injury may also be non-taxable, including PERA Police and Fire Plan or Corrections Plan Duty Disability Benefits, and MSRS State Patrol Plan and Corrections Plan Duty Disability Benefits.

Meuser Law Office, P.A. is one of the few workers’ compensation law firms in the state of Minnesota that also handles PERA and MSRS disability claims. We’ve successfully represented hundreds of State Patrol, police officers and firefighters throughout the state for both workers’ compensation and PERA/MSRS disability claims. As your attorney, we will explain what rights you have and make recommendations to you in terms of how to best protect your rights to those benefits. The knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. can help make the process easier to navigate. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling 1-877-746-5680.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Retraining and Work Comp in Minnesota

Retraining is a benefit available in the state of Minnesota under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Retraining is a formal education program paid by the work comp insurer which is designed to assist an employee in returning to suitable gainful employment. Retraining may include vocational technical programs or post-secondary education, depending on the employee’s skillset and physical restrictions.

Retraining differs from other types of rehabilitation benefits, wherein an employee may engage in job search with the assistance of a QRC (Qualified Rehabilitation Consultant) to find suitable gainful employment outside of the date of injury employer. Retraining is also different than permanent total disability benefits, wherein an employee is not able to return to suitable gainful employment at all.

The retraining program must be approved by the insurer or court ordered and must be requested before 208 weeks of a combination of temporary total or temporary partial disability benefits are paid. Under Minnesota Statute 176.102, subdivision 11 (d) insurer must provide employees notice of the 208-week limitation for filing a request.

While an employee is in a retraining program, he or she is also entitled to wage loss benefits for up to 156 weeks. These benefits are paid out at the same rate as temporary total disability benefits (TTD) or two-thirds of an employee’s average weekly wage. These benefits are also non-taxable. These benefits are separate and distinct from temporary total disability benefits and temporary partial disability benefits; therefore, even if an employee reaches the 130-week cap on TTD or 225-week cap on TPD, he or she may still be entitled to retraining wage loss benefits.

First a QRC will perform an evaluation to determine whether retraining is appropriate. This evaluation may include vocational testing and an examination of the employee’s scholastic skills and physical capabilities as well as a labor market study. The QRC will then create a retraining plan proposal that will include: the type of program, costs, appropriateness and feasibility that the employee will complete the program. The QRC’s role in formulating an appropriate retraining plan cannot be understated and it’s an important reason to request your own QRC, not the one assigned by the insurer or employer. You have up to 60 days to elect a change in a QRC, after the QRC has filed his or her rehabilitation plan.

Typically, police officers or firefighters whose public service careers are cut short by a life-changing injury or injuries make excellent retraining candidates. Police officers and firefighters may have worked in his or her field for an extended period of time, have a limited educational background in law enforcement or fire science, and are high wage earners. They also may have another 10 - 15 years before he or she reaches retirement age. These injured workers may need additional education to assist them return to work in a field that pays comparable to their pre-injury careers.

The formulation and approval of a retraining plan is a lengthy and often tedious process with frequent court involvement. Typically, employees must perform extensive job search efforts before retraining is even considered. Some employees prefer to negotiate a settlement and use the monies to pursue their choice of study rather than jump through the work comp insurer’s hoops to be approved for a program in a field he or she may not truly want to study.

If you believe that you are eligible for retraining benefits or have questions regarding a potential workers’ compensation claim, contact the experienced attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. We are one of the few workers’ compensation law firms in the state of Minnesota that also handles PERA and MSRS disability claims. We have represented hundreds of State Patrol, police officers and firefighters throughout the state for both workers’ compensation and PERA/MSRS disability claims. Meuser Law Office, P.A. will explain what rights you have and make recommendations to you in terms of how to best protect your rights to those benefits. The knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. can help make the process easier to navigate. Contact us today at 1-877-746-5680 for a free, no-obligation case evaluation and consultation.

by Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

Can You be Denied Workers’ Compensation Benefits Because of a Prior Injury?

Many injured workers are denied Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits because of prior injuries. For example, a workers’ compensation insurer may see that you filed a workers’ compensation claim with a former employer for the same body part and deny your claim, alleging that your current symptoms are the result of the prior injury. Or, an insurer may review your medical records and discover that you sustained an injury while playing basketball fifteen years earlier. This can be true even if you have been working full-duty for several years without any physical issues.

What do you do when your claim is denied?

Dealing with a denied workers’ compensation claim can be very frustrating. Many injured workers reasonably assume that because they were injured at work, everything will be taken care of by their employer and its insurance company. Unfortunately, for many injured workers, this is not the case and they find themselves incurring thousands of dollars in wage loss and medical bills, the employee has lost several weeks of wages and run up hundreds, or thousands, of dollars in medical bills.

In this situation, you have a couple of options. The insurance company hopes that you will simply walk away. If you have health insurance or are willing to go back to work despite your injury (and many times, against your treating doctor’s advice), you can simply avoid the fight and walk away from the claim. Many insurance companies count on the fact that employees will do this instead of contacting an attorney and taking definitive steps to prove their claim. The choice to not make a workers’ compensation claim can have dire consequences if the injury turns out to be a serious or long-term issue. Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, employees must file their workers’ compensation claims with the state within a prescribed period of time or they will be forever barred from bringing their claims. It is important that you discuss these deadlines (or statute of limitations) with an experienced attorney so you can make an informed choice about whether to proceed with a claim.

The second option is to fight the insurance company for the wage loss and medical benefits that you are entitled to under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. The first thing you will want to do is call an attorney experienced in the area of workers’ compensation to determine whether you have a viable claim. If the attorney believes that you have a compensable claim, they will work on your behalf to establish your claims by gathering medical evidence, including records and reports; filing your claim with the Department of Labor and Industry; and advocate on your behalf with the insurance company and its representatives.

What if I had a prior injury to the same body part?

When I first speak to clients, I often hear that they do not want to bring a claim because of a prior injury to the same body part. Many people falsely believe that a prior injury will disqualify them from receiving workers’ compensation benefits. This is categorically untrue. Prior injuries can make your claim more complicated in some circumstances; however, the Minnesota workers’ compensation laws do not require that your work injury be the sole cause of your current injury or disability. The law only requires that the work injury be a substantial contributing cause or factor to the underlying condition or disability. In other words, your prior injury and your work injury may have combined to create your current condition—and that’s completely fine. You are still able to bring a workers’ compensation claim, collect wage loss and have your medical bills covered.

In Minnesota, the workers’ compensation laws actually go even a step further. If you have a pre-existing injury that is substantially re-aggravated or accelerated by a work injury or your work duties, you are eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits. An example the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. frequently encounter is police officers that develop PTSD on the job relating to his or her job duties. Many police officers have served in the military prior to going into law enforcement and may have experienced traumatic events as a police officer and as a service member. This does not preclude them from receiving workers’ compensation benefits relating to his or her PTSD condition. This is true even if the police officer had been diagnosed with PTSD through the Veteran’s Administration and is collecting disability benefits.

The burden of proof in a Minnesota workers’ compensation claim is on the employee. This is significant because it means that when a claim is denied or disputed, an employee must prove that his or her work injury or duties was a substantial contributing cause or factor to his or her current condition. An employee can establish this by filing a claim with the Department of Labor and Industry, obtaining a medical report (or a “narrative report”) that supports the causal connection between the condition and the work duties, and resolving the claims through settlement or a hearing.

If you or someone you know has sustained an injury on the job and the workers’ compensation insurer has denied your claim, do not panic. As explained in this article, you are able to fight this determination, even if you have a pre-existing condition or prior injury. It is important that you contact the experienced attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A., they will provide valuable guidance on the Minnesota workers’ compensation system and help you navigate through what can be a very stressful process. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling 1-877-746-5680.

by Ashley Biermann
More posts by Ashley