Police Officer Duty Belts and Gillette Low Back Work Injuries

In Minnesota under the Workers’ Compensation Act the legislature recognizes numerous types of work injuries including specific injuries, Gillette injuries, occupational diseases, and consequential injuries. The case Gillette v. Harold, Inc. established that injuries caused by repetitive minute trauma brought about by the performance of ordinary job duties is compensable under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. (257 Minn. 313 (1960).) These types of injuries may be thought of generally as “wear and tear” injuries or repetitive motion injuries that are cumulative in a larger injury.

At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we frequently see law enforcement officers with Gillette low back injuries. While conducting patrol, police officers and deputy sheriffs wear duty belts that press up against his or her low back during a shift. The duty belt may weigh anywhere from 15 – 20 pounds and make handgun, handcuffs, flashlights, gloves, baton, radio, pepper spray, among other tools instantly accessible to officers. Additionally, officers may also have to wear a protective vest that puts additional strain on his or her back. Studies have shown that the equipment’s weight, the placement against the officer’s body, and the force exerted on the equipment when the officer is seated inside his or her squad car factor the amount of pain an officer suffers from wearing a duty belt.* Police officers and deputy sheriffs wear these heavy belts when entering and exiting squad cars, arresting or chasing non-compliant suspects, and when lifting patients into emergency vehicles. Officers conducting patrol duties in squad cars also face additional strain and pressure on his or her low back.

Over time, the everyday wear and tear on an officer’s low back due to his or her duty belt coupled with an officer’s normal job duties can cause serious disc issues in the officer’s lumbar spine. If the discs are damaged and further deteriorate, surgical intervention may be required in the future. If you are experiencing low back pain which you believe may be work-related, it is imperative you seek medical attention immediately and report your possible injury to your employer.

If the duty belt exacerbates an underlying non-work related injury, you may still have a compensable work injury. The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act does not require that the work-related injury be the sole cause of a disabling condition. The law only requires that the work injury be a substantial contributing cause or fact to the employee’s condition. Swanson v. Medtronics, 443 N.W.2d 534 (1989).  An injury is compensable when an injury aggravates or accelerates a pre-existing condition. Wallace v. Hanson Silo Co., 235 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 1975). So, while an officer may have had a prior low back injury from a motor vehicle collision, if the duties such as wearing a duty belt, entering and existing a squad car, among other patrol duties substantially aggravates or accelerates disc degeneration in his or her lumbar spine, then the injury may be compensable. In order to determine if the new injury is compensable the judge will consider:

• The nature and severity of the pre-existing condition and the extent of restrictions and disability resulting there from
• The nature of the symptoms and extent of medical treatment prior to the aggravating incident
• The nature and severity of the aggravating incident and the extent of the restrictions and disability resulting there from
• The nature of the symptoms and the extent of medical treatment following the aggravating incident
• The nature and extent of the employee’s work duties and non-work activities during the relevant period
• Medical opinions on the issue. McClellan v. Up North Plastics, slip. op. (W.C.C.A. October 18, 1994)

If you are a Minnesota police officer with a low back injury you believe was incurred from work duties, contact the experienced attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. immediately for a free, no-obligation case review. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we have represented hundreds of police officers with low back injuries and have successfully been awarded PERA Duty Disability benefits, Health Care Continuation benefits under Minnesota Statute 299A.465, and workers’ compensation wage loss benefits and medical treatment. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

* Ergonomics and Safety in Law Enforcement, by Fabrice Czarnecki and Ira Janowitz, 2003.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Czarnecki/ergonomics_and_safety_in_law_enforcement.htm

by Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

Third-Party Claims and Workers’ Compensation Subrogation

In certain limited circumstances, injured workers may bring a civil claim arising out of the incident that caused his or her work injury. These civil claims may include pain and suffering and other types of monetary damages not available under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation system. The employee may not sue his or her employer for causing his or her injury, but the injured worker may sue a third-party who is at fault, meaning that the other person or entity’s negligence caused the injured worker’s injury. Third-party claims typically arise in work-related motor vehicle accidents, construction accidents, products liability claims, or premise liability claims.

When a claimant brings a third-party claim against a separate party, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier maintains a “subrogation interest” in the litigation. The defendant in the civil law suit will have to pay back the workers’ compensation insurance carrier as the defendant’s negligence caused the injury and ensuring disability with monetary damages. This interplay creates a nuanced relationship between the injured worker and the employer and insurer, which may even be described as, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

The third-party defendant or “tortfeasor” may sue the employer for contribution to the employee’s civil claim based on the employer’s negligence in causing the employee’s injury, as described in Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corporation, 257 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 1977). In some cases, the work comp insurer may agree to “waive and walk” under Minnesota Statute § 176.061, subdivision 11, meaning the insurer will waive the subrogation claim as a part of a settlement and avoid a Lambertson claim in the civil context. The injured worker cannot recover from the employer for his or her work injury so it is not in his or her best interest to allege negligence on behalf of his employer. As a party of a work comp settlement with the employee, the insurer and employer may also agree to waive and assign his or her future subrogation interest as and for additional consideration. This future subrogation interest can be very valuable for the employee.

The quintessential case that describes this relationship between the employer and employer and insurer and the distinct types of settlements in third-party claims is Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 288 N.W.2d 891 (Minn. 1977). The workers’ compensation insurance carrier maintains a separate right of recovery as against the defendant; however, frequently it is in the parties’ best interest to unite against the civil defendant to maximize each party’s recovery. A work comp insurer could separately settle its workers’ compensation subrogation claim on an independent basis, which is commonly referred to as a reverse-Naig basis, as defined in Folstad v. Eder, 467 N.W. 2d 608 (1991).

If the employee and employer and insurer agree to “no-naig” and “no reverse-naig,” meaning neither party will settle out its interest as against the civil defendant without the other’s agreement, then the parties must agree on how to allocate the settlement proceeds. If the civil suit were to proceed to trial and the plaintiff, or employee, were to successfully recover damages against the civil defendant, the recovery is generally distributed as outlined by the formula in Minnesota Statute § 176.061, subdivision 6. The distribution formula allows for the possibility that the monetary damages recovered may not fully compensate the plaintiff for his or her losses. For example, the civil defendant may only have $500,000 in an insurance policy; however, the plaintiff’s damages may exceed $1 million. Rather than engage in drawn out litigation against a defendant who is “judgement proof,” meaning he or she may not have money in excess of the insurance policy limits, the defendant may offer the full policy limits. The plaintiff may then bring a claim against his or her own insurance policy for under-insured motorist coverage, in the case of a motor vehicle collision. The distribution formula also allows that of the $500,000 recovered in the civil case, attorney fees are deducted as well as litigation costs. The workers’ compensation subrogation interest is then reduced by what is referred to as the “cost of collection”.

Don’t wait to get an attorney involved if you believe you may have a third-party claim arising out of your Minnesota workers’ compensation claim. The process can be complex and you want to be sure you receive the full benefits to which you are entitled. Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free no-obligation consultation and claim evaluation. If you have a third-party claim it is imperative to use a firm with experience in work comp as well as personal injury. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

Moot Court and Trial Competitions at University of St. Thomas Law School

Ron Meuser and Mary Beth Boyce of Meuser Law Office, P.A. are proud to be part of this year’s University of St. Thomas Moot Court Intramural Competition. Each year the University of St. Thomas Law School send students to participate in national moot court, trial advocacy, and negotiations competitions. These competitions offer students an opportunity to focus on their written and oral advocacy skills, which are key skills when practicing law. The intramural competition helps determine which students make the various teams.

In a moot court competition, students are tasked with arguing a hypothetical case on appeal to the United Supreme Court. In participating, the students are showing their ability to write and speak clearly while thinking quickly.

Mary Beth was invited to judge the initial rounds and Ron was asked to be a judge for the final round of the St. Thomas School of Law Intramural Moot Court Competition held in September. Ron had the honor to judge alongside former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Dietzen and Professor Teresa Collett. What an honor and great experience! Congratulations to all the students who participated!

by Ron Meuser
More posts by Ron

Remembering Officer William Mathews of the Wayzata, Minnesota Police Department

On behalf of Meuser Law Office, P.A., we extend our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of Officer William Mathews, 47, who was struck and killed by a motorist in the early afternoon on September 8, 2017. Officer Mathews was removing dangerous debris in the roadway when he was hit by an SUV and died of his injuries.

Officer Mathews is a nine-year department veteran who was proud to serve the Wayzata and Long Lake communities. His family says law enforcement was his “calling” and he loved his life serving as a police officer. Officer Mathews leaves behind a wife and young son.

Meuser Law Office, P.A. has represented hundreds of police officers, firefighters, state troopers, and paramedics and understand the dangers faced each day they put on their uniform. Motor vehicle accidents pose a great risk to first responders. We respect the risks they take performing their daily duties to keep our communities safe and take this time to simply say thank you.

Please keep Officer Mathews’ family, friends, and fellow officers in your prayers.

by Ron Meuser
More posts by Ron