Showing posts with label Jen Yackley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jen Yackley. Show all posts

Monday, May 21, 2018

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.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Thursday, May 3, 2018

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.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Monday, April 23, 2018

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.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Thursday, April 12, 2018

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.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

‘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.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Monday, February 26, 2018

Move Over for Police Officers on the Side of the Road!

When winter weather strikes, Minnesota’s State Troopers, police officers, and sheriff’s deputies are out in full force to assist motorists involved in crashes or in need of assistance due to bad road conditions. Move over and slow down when you see an officer on the side of the road. Watch this powerful video from the Minnesota State Patrol's Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/MnStatePatrol/videos/10155267944773144/

Unfortunately, while they are helping motorists in need of assistance, our State’s law enforcement officers are placed in harm’s way. Every winter, dozens of Minnesota police officers suffer injuries as a result of a car accident. All too often, these crashes occur while an officer is assisting a motorist and another motorist loses control or is not paying attention and hits the officer who is stopped on the side of the road. An officer is far more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a result of a car crash than being killed or seriously injured by gunfire.

State Troopers, police officers and sheriff’s deputies who suffer injuries as the result of a car crash –whether it is on the side of the road during a stop, while helping motorists involved in a crash, during a pursuit, while responding to a call with lights and sirens, or while on patrol – may be eligible for a number of different types of benefits. Securing these benefits on behalf of the injured officer will ensure access to medical care and cover any lost wages that may occur:

Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Plan Duty Disability Benefits or Minnesota State Retirement Association (MSRS) State Patrol Plan Duty Disability Benefits

A State Trooper or police officer who suffers serious injuries resulting in limitations on their ability to perform full duty for a period of at least a year may be eligible for PERA/MSRS Duty Disability benefits. This monthly benefit provides a base rate of 60% of the injured officer’s high five salary. These benefits are non-taxable though age 55 or for 5 years, whichever is longer. Usually, injuries that are the result of an on-duty car crash will qualify for this benefit.

Minnesota Statute 299A.465 Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits

Minnesota troopers and police officers who are determined to be eligible for Duty Disability benefits through PERA or MSRS are also eligible for Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. This statute requires the State Trooper or police officer’s employer to continue to pay insurance premiums for health insurance coverage for the officer, and the officer’s family if the officer had family coverage at the time of the injury. This benefit continues through age 65.

Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Troopers and other law enforcement officers are also eligible for workers’ compensation benefits for injuries suffered in the line of duty, including injuries that occur as a result of a car crash. Minnesota workers’ compensation includes medical expense benefits, wage loss benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, and rehabilitation benefits. In many cases, the officer may also be eligible for a lump sum settlement.

Personal Injury Civil Liability Claims

In addition to disability pension benefits and workers’ compensation benefits, a police officer who suffers injuries as the result of a motor vehicle crash may also be able to assert a liability claim against the at-fault driver. These claims allow an officer to make claims for past and future medical expenses, past and future wage loss, and past and future pain and suffering – which is not covered by workers’ compensation.

Choosing the right lawyer matters. For Minnesota police officers and State Troopers involved in car crashes, choosing the right lawyer is important. There are several large personal injury firms that do a fantastic job on personal injury claims. BUT, what they don’t do is just as important for Troopers and police officers – those large firms do not handle workers’ compensation or PERA/MSRSA disability claims.  That means that if you hire one of these firms to handle your personal injury claim, you will need to have a second lawyer to handle your workers’ compensation claim, and you are on your own or might even need to hire a third lawyer to help you with your pension claim.

We have heard it time and again – a police officer has hired a lawyer to assist them with their car accident claim, but they are getting no help or guidance on their workers’ compensation or pension claims. They don’t know what steps to take, how to deal with disputes that pop up on their workers’ compensation claims, how to deal with their employer, what to do about their work restrictions and light duty, and what to expect as far as whether they will be able to continue in their job.

At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we handle ALL claims arising out of an in the line of duty car crash for Minnesota police officers. Meuser Law Office, P.A. is the pre-eminent law firm in the State of Minnesota for police officers and firefighters. Coordinating the various claims is complex and a misstep, such as missing a deadline, not filling out paperwork properly, or simply not providing appropriate guidance can cost a officer hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in benefits.

As we get into the homestretch of winter, we can expect several more snowfalls and more bad road conditions. Don’t be the one that is responsible for injuring one of our State’s law enforcement officers. Slow down and move over if you see an officer on the side of the road!

If you are an officer who has suffered injuries due to a car crash, call us first! The experienced attorneys of Meuser Law Office, P.A. will coordinate all of your potential claims to ensure you and your family have access to the full benefits you are entitled to. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits for Disabled Minnesota Firefighters and Police Officers

In addition to workers’ compensation and PERA disability benefits, Minnesota’s police officers and firefighters who suffer disabling injuries while performing inherently dangerous duties are also eligible for continued health insurance coverage.

Minnesota statute § 299A.465 requires that an employer of a police officer or firefighter who has been awarded PERA Duty Disability benefits continue to pay their share of the police officer or firefighter’s health insurance premiums until the officer or firefighter reaches age 65. If the officer or firefighter’s dependents had coverage through the employer at the time of the officer or fighter’s injury, the employer must also continue to pay its share of the insurance premiums for those dependents.

In plain English, that means that if you are a Minnesota police officer or firefighter, and you suffer a career-ending injury that was incurred while you were performing inherently dangerous duties, your employer has to continue to offer you the same health insurance and continue to pay their share of the premium, as though you remained on the payroll through age 65.

Although this statute seems pretty straight-forward, Meuser Law Office, P.A. has seen a huge increase in the frequency of litigation on these claims. Given the rising costs of health insurance, more and more employers are trying to deny these types of claims, and we are seeing more and more situations where it isn’t 100% clear how this statute should apply.

Here are a few of the situations the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. have seen recently and how the courts have been deciding these issues. Notably, we are seeing different courts arrive at different conclusions.

Employer Contested Case Hearings

After an officer or firefighter is awarded PERA Duty Disability benefits, an employer has the right to “appeal” that determination by requesting a Contested Case Hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings in front of a neutral Administrative Law Judge within 60 days of notice of PERA’s Duty Disability approval. Usually “appeals” in this context are based on an employer’s argument that the police officer or firefighter doesn’t meet the Duty Disability criteria for one reason or another. We have litigated several of these cases to a favorable conclusion in front of an Administrative Law Judge, and we have settled several other contested cases for a lump sum cash settlement. A Contested Case Hearing is like an informal trial, at which evidence and testimony will be submitted, and the Administrative Law Judge makes a decision as to whether the officer or firefighter is eligible for benefits. This is considered a final determination, and either side can appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Our office recently had an interesting case involving two employers. Arguably, the officer’s post-traumatic stress disorder was caused by his traumatic exposures at two different law enforcement agencies, and arguably, both are partially responsible for his health insurance coverage. One employer requested a Contested Case Hearing, and the other did not. The employer who did not request a Contested Case Hearing filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that he had waived his right to future health insurance coverage via Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 because he had signed an employment law release in exchange for a severance when he left that department. The Court disagreed. In fact, the Court held that employer had no right to even contest this officer’s eligibility health insurance coverage since it failed to request a Contested Case Hearing within the statutory time frame.

Suing an Employer in District Court

Even though Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 says that an employer has to request a Contested Case Hearing within 60 days of PERA’s notice of approval for Duty Disability benefits, often employers don’t do that. Instead, they admit that the disabled officer or firefighter meets the eligibility requirements for Duty Disability, but they argue that the disabled officer or firefighter is ineligible for Continued Health Insurance benefits for other reasons. Usually, these cases must then be sued out in district court. We have a couple cases currently pending in district court involving these issues, and we’ve been able to settle a few cases as well. Usually, the issues involved in cases in district court revolve around whether the disabled officer or firefighter is barred from health insurance because of a gap in coverage, because they were covered as a dependent on a spouse’s policy, or because they waived coverage in exchange for a cash benefit.

Cases Involving More Than One Employer

As mentioned, we now have a handful of cases involving multiple employers. Two cases involved post-traumatic stress disorder that was caused by an officer’s exposure to traumatic events at two different agencies, and a third case involved an officer who suffered a back injury that was re-injured with a different agency. In one of the post-traumatic stress disorder cases, notwithstanding both employers’ arguments to the contrary, the Administrative Law Judge held that even though Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 doesn’t explicitly address that situation, that a court may equitably apportion responsibility for continued health insurance coverage to two or more employers who may both be responsible for the officer’s underlying disabling condition. The second post-traumatic stress disorder case is still in litigation. On the case involving the back injury, even though two employers were both arguably responsible for the officer’s back injury, his most recent employer voluntarily agreed to pay his ongoing health insurance coverage.

Cash Incentive Insurance Waivers

With ever-rising health insurance costs, we are seeing litigation involving cash incentive waiver plans much more frequently because we are seeing more and more public employers offering such plans. Employers can offer a variety of different types of cash waiver plans, but the concept is that an officer or firefighter waives health insurance coverage through their public employer in exchange for a monthly, quarterly, or annual cash benefit. For example, an officer may have the option of waiving health insurance coverage through his employer, go on his spouse’s family plan as a dependent, and receive $250 per month from his employer as an incentive for waiving coverage. Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? Well, not necessarily. In almost every case we have seen with a cash waiver plan, the employer has argued that the officer or firefighter is ineligible for health insurance benefits. What if that officer or firefighter’s spouse loses his or her job and insurance? What if the officer or firefighter goes through a divorce or their spouse dies? What if the officer or firefighter’s spouse retires? Who pays for that officer or firefighter’s insurance?

At this point, it is unclear. We have had different results in different courts on this issue. There is a Court of Appeals case our office handled a few years ago which found that a disabled firefighter who was a dependent on his spouse’s insurance policy was eligible for Continued Health Insurance Benefits in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, even though he was not individually covered on the city’s health insurance plan.

We also recently had an Administrative Law case where the officer had elected to waive his coverage in exchange for cash benefit, and he was a dependent on his wife’s family policy. The employer argued that he gave up his right to benefits under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 because he accepted the cash benefit and waived coverage. The court disagreed, holding that the employer was required to continue to offer him coverage.

We currently have a case in District Court involving three officers/firefighters from the same employer that all elected the cash waiver plan offered by their employer. We expect that this case will go to the Minnesota Court of Appeals to hopefully definitively answer whether an employer is required to “continue” health insurance for a disabled officer or firefighter who waived coverage.

Occasionally run into other types of cases involving disputes over exactly what benefits are provided by Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, including a case involving a cash incentive for waiver of family coverage, cases involving HSA contributions, and cases involving reimbursement for COBRA coverage.

This is a very complex and evolving area of law. If you are a Minnesota police officer or firefighter with questions about your rights under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, we are happy to help.

There are a variety of benefits available for Minnesota’s disabled police officers and firefighters, including, but not limited to, workers’ compensation benefits, PERA disability benefits, Continuation of Health Insurance benefits, and third-party liability claims. Contact the knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. to learn more about your rights. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

PERA Police and Fire Plan 18 Month Filing Deadline: Do Not Miss It!

There are several important deadlines that Minnesota police officers and firefighters need to be aware of when filing a PERA disability benefits claim, including the 18-month post-termination filing deadline.

Applications for Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Plan Duty or Regular Disability Benefits MUST be filed within 18 months after the person’s termination from public service. If an application is not filed within 18 months, an otherwise eligible disabled police officer or firefighter is barred from filing for PERA disability benefits. Missing this deadline can cost a disabled police officer or firefighter hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We have seen this issue come up several times. If a disabled police officer or firefighter has missed the 18-month deadline, no matter how strong his or her claim for PERA Duty Disability benefits and no matter how much we want to help, there is nothing the attorney can do.

Unfortunately, the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. see this issue come up occasionally. For example:
  • An attorney in our office was contacted by a police officer who was involved in an on-duty shooting incident. The officer developed some mental health issues as a result and went on a medical leave for a short period of time. At the officer’s request, the officer’s doctor cleared her to return to full duty, even though she was still having mental health issues. After a short time back on the job, she realized things weren’t going well and she knew she couldn’t continue. She resigned from her job and didn’t pursue anything even though she was suffering from serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the on-duty shooting incident. Thankfully, a former colleague of hers suggested she call Meuser Law Office, P.A. to see if she was eligible for any benefits. We got her application in just shy of the 18-month deadline, and this officer was awarded PERA Duty Disability benefits, 299A.465 Continuation of Health Insurance benefits, and workers’ compensation benefits
  • An officer contacted us to evaluate his potential PERA Duty Disability claim. He was referred to Meuser Law Office, P.A. by his workers’ compensation lawyer, having just settled his workers’ compensation claim. This Minnesota police officer had suffered a low back injury while wrestling with a suspect which required surgery. After his physical restrictions due to his low back injury were deemed permanent, his employer terminated him based on his inability to perform his full duty job. Over the next two years, he collected various workers’ compensation benefits, and his work comp lawyer ultimately settled his workers’ compensation case. Unfortunately, his workers’ compensation lawyer also instructed him not to file for PERA Duty Disability benefits during that time. By the time he met with an attorney in our office, his PERA claim was barred because he had failed to file within 18 months of his termination. There was nothing that we could do to help him. Because this officer’s workers’ compensation lawyer didn’t know the rules associated with PERA, he gave the officer bad advice that cost him several hundred thousand dollars.
  • An attorney in our office met with a Minnesota police officer who had terminated from his employment over two years prior to our meeting. He had resigned as a police officer when he started to struggle with some mental health issues. Unfortunately, he didn’t seek help for his symptoms and he wasn’t diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder until more than two years after he terminated. Because he didn’t seek help and tried to manage it on his own, this officer didn’t even know he had PTSD until two years after he resigned. This gentleman didn’t receive a diagnosis until after the 18-month deadline had passed, but currently PERA does not have an exception for latent conditions that are not diagnosed until much later in time, such as cancer or post-traumatic stress disorder.
For Minnesota’s police officers and firefighters who suffer significant on-duty injuries, it is imperative to have the right lawyer from the beginning. At Meuser Law Office, P.A., the first time we meet with a client, our knowledgeable and experienced attorneys evaluate every potential claim, including but not limited to, Minnesota workers’ compensation, PERA/MSRS disability, Continuation of Health Insurance claims, and third-party claims. Our attorneys develop a timeline and a plan to ensure every possible resource for benefits is explored, which includes the coordination of claims every step of the way. Experience matters. For a free, no-obligation consultation, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Will I Be Offered a Settlement on My Workers’ Compensation Case?

Individuals who suffer a work injury in Minnesota often wonder if or when they will receive a settlement. In fact, there are “work comp settlement calculators” on the Internet that mislead people into thinking that punching a few numbers into a form will give them a settlement estimate.

In Minnesota workers’ compensation is a “pay as you go” system, meaning that work comp benefits are paid on an ongoing basis, as long as you remain entitled to benefits. There is no such thing as an automatic “settlement” for your injuries.

That being said, settlement is a very common practice in Minnesota workers’ compensation cases, particularly where:
  • There is a dispute over benefits
  • The person will be eligible for ongoing work comp benefits for an extended period of time
An experienced Minnesota workers’ compensation attorney can help you decide whether a settlement of your case is in your best interest. With the guidance of an attorney, whether or not to settle your case is ultimately your decision. If you are considering settlement of your workers’ compensation case, you and your attorney will typically discuss the settlement process, which includes:
  • Making a settlement demand
  • Settlement negotiations
  • Strengths and weaknesses of your case
  • Approximate settlement value of your case
When calculating the settlement value of a Minnesota workers’ compensation case, there are several factors that are taken into consideration, including past owed wage loss, future estimated wage loss, rehabilitation and/or retraining benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, and outstanding medical expenses. Once the attorney has calculated a settlement demand, with client authorization to do so, the attorney will then send that demand to the defense attorney or the insurance adjuster. From there the defense attorney or adjuster will respond with an offer, and the parties negotiate back and forth, ultimately arriving at a number that is acceptable to both sides.

Beyond the numbers in a Minnesota workers’ compensation case, your lawyer will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your case, and he or she will give you recommendations of the likelihood of success. The relative strength of a given case plays a huge role in the settlement value of the case. For example, if there is a case where the past and future wage loss is potentially worth $200,000, but the client only has a 25% chance of succeeding at trial, the case is worth far less than the potential past and future monetary value of the case.

Minnesota workers’ compensation settlement negotiations can take a variety of forms. Often, negotiating is an informal process of phone calls or emails back and forth. At times settlement discussions occur at a Settlement Conference at the Office of Administrative Hearings, and frequently, Meuser Law Office, P.A. utilizes a form of alternative dispute resolution called mediation in negotiating on a case. A mediation involves the services of an individual who is a third-party neutral to facilitate settlement discussions between the injured worker and the employer/insurer.

In addition to a dollar figure, the parties will also need to reach an agreement as to terms of the settlement. Is it a “to-date” settlement, meaning that the settlement only pertains to past owed benefits? Or is it on a full, final, complete basis, meaning that the settlement is for past and future benefits? Are future medical expenses open or closed – in other words, is the workers’ compensation insurer responsible for future medical expenses relative to the work injury? Who is responsible for paying any outstanding medical expenses or third party reimbursement claims, such as unemployment or short/long-term disability, the injured worker or the employer/insurer? These are all issues that need to be worked out in addition to the settlement amount.

Once you have reached a settlement on your workers’ compensation case, it typically takes a few weeks before things are finalized. You will ultimately sign a Stipulation for Settlement, which is a contract between you and the employer and their workers’ compensation insurer setting forth the terms of the settlement. Depending on the complexity of the case, it is not uncommon that it can take several weeks for this paperwork to be finalized. After the paperwork is signed by both sides, it is submitted to the Office of Administrative Hearings for approval. Once a judge has reviewed and signed off on the settlement, the Court will issue an Award on Stipulation, which is simply a Court Order approving the settlement. The workers’ compensation insurer has 14 days from the date of the Award on Stipulation to issue payment.

If you would like to discuss potential settlement of your Minnesota workers’ compensation case, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. to schedule a free, no-obligation legal consultation. Our knowledgeable attorneys will help you understand the often-confusing Minnesota work comp law and ensure you receive the full benefits to which you are entitled. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Friday, April 28, 2017

In the Line of Duty Injuries: Minnesota State Troopers

Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Minnesota State Troopers are entitled to a variety of benefits to cover medical expenses and wage loss if they are injured in the line of duty. Whether the injuries are due to a car accident, a lifting incident, a slip and fall while chasing a suspect, or wear-and-tear over time, if the State Trooper’s work activities are a substantial contributing factor to the injuries, the Trooper is eligible for Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits.

Minnesota workers’ compensation covers all injuries arising out of and in the course and scope of employment. This includes physical injuries incurred as the result of a specific incident, physical injuries that occur over time due to repetitive use or wear-and-tear, injuries that aggravate or accelerate a pre-existing condition, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that is the result of work-related traumatic exposures. Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits include medical expense benefits for reasonable and necessary medical care, including hospital charges, imaging like MRI’s or CT scans, diagnostic tests, surgery, prescriptions, physical therapy, mental health care, chiropractic care, and mileage expenses. If a Minnesota StateTrooper misses time off work or experiences reduced pay as the result of a work-related injury, workers’ compensation pays wage loss benefits including temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits, and/or permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. A State Trooper may also be eligible for rehabilitation services, including retraining benefits, if that Trooper cannot return to his or her former position as a Minnesota State Trooper as the result of a work-related injury.

MSRS State Patrol Plan Duty Disability Benefits

Minnesota State Troopers who suffer in the line of duty injuries may also be eligible for Duty Disability benefits under the MinnesotaState Retirement System (MSRS) State Patrol Plan. A Trooper who suffers an injury or illness that 1) prevents the Trooper from performing his or her normal duties for a period of at least a year, 2) that injury or illness occurred during the performance of inherently dangerous duties that are specific to Troopers, and 3) the duties that the Trooper was performing at the time of the injury or illness were specific to protecting safety and property. In short, if a Trooper suffers an in the line of duty injury while performing “inherently dangerous duties,” and that Trooper cannot return to full duty as a result of the injury, he or she is eligible for Duty Disability benefits. Duty Disability benefits are payable at a base rate of 60% of the Trooper’s high-five salary. Unlike State Patrol Plan retirement benefits, Duty Disability benefits are non-taxable through age 55 or 5 years, whichever is longer. There are extremely complex rules regarding the coordination of Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits and Duty Disability benefits for State Troopers. Discuss these coordination issues with an attorney experienced in handling both workers’ compensation and MSRS pension benefits.

Health Insurance Continuation Benefits Under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465

Minnesota State Troopers who qualify for MSRS State PatrolPlan Duty Disability benefits are also eligible for continued health insurancebenefits under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. This statute requires the Department of Public Safety to continue to provide health insurance coverage to the disabled Trooper and his or her family, if applicable, as though the Trooper remained on the payroll. This means that the state continues to pay its share of the Trooper’s health insurance premiums. This benefit continues through age 65.

Civil Liability Claims – Auto Accidents

Given the sheer amount of time Minnesota State Troopers spend on the state’s roadways, unfortunately injuries as the result of crashes are quite common. If a Minnesota State Trooper suffers injuries as the result of an auto crash that is the fault of a third party, that Trooper may be able to pursue a civil liability claim against the at-fault driver, in addition to workers’ compensation and MSRS Duty Disability benefits. A civil auto liability claim allows a Trooper to assert claims for losses that are not covered by workers’ compensation, including:
  • future wage loss beyond the time limits available under workers’ compensation
  • future loss of earning capacity
  • pain and suffering
  • loss of enjoyment of life
  • loss of consortium
Coordination of benefits for disabled Minnesota State Troopers is complex. This is a very specialized area of law, and it’s easy to overlook claims or to make mistakes that can cost the Trooper hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits. For Minnesota State Troopers, to ensure you are maximizing all potential sources of benefits, contact Meuser Law Office,P.A.

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. 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

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Friday, April 7, 2017

Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Benefits are Not Taxable

It’s that time of year again! Tax time! This year’s tax filing deadline is April 18, 2017. If you’ve procrastinated, or you’re doing your own taxes, you may be wondering if you need to report your Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits. In other words, are your Minnesota work comp wage loss benefits taxable? 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 therefore are 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.

To ensure you are maximizing your eligibility for Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free no-obligation consultation. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Friday, March 31, 2017

Meet Jen Yackley

Hi, my name is Jen Yackley and I’m an attorney at Meuser Law Office, P.A.  Our law office specializes in workers’ compensation, PERA disability benefits, MSRS disability benefits and personal injury on behalf of workers injured in the course and scope of their employment in Minnesota. I grew up in Canby, Minnesota, a small town in Western Minnesota. I earned my Bachelor’s degree from Beuna Vista University in Storm Lake, Iowa, and went on to earn my Juris Doctor degree from Hamline University in 2008. I began working at Meuser Law Office as a law clerk while I was in law school in 2007 and I’ve been there ever since. I began practicing as an attorney in 2008.


While I was in law school, my husband sustained an injury in the course and scope of his employment doing construction work. The work comp insurer denied that he was an employee within the meaning of the work comp laws and they denied his claim. I saw first hand what it was like to deal with a work injury when work comp is refusing to pay for medical expenses and refusing to pay for your wage loss. He went to trial and he won, so I saw the whole process start to finish and we obviously had a good result. I have seen what it’s like to not only go through a case where the work comp insurer is denying your claim, but also what it’s like when the insurance company is actually paying your claim.

Through that process, I learned that the workers’ compensation system is its own unique court system and I found the work comp laws to be very fascinating and decided I wanted to practice in this area.

Almost from day 1 working with Meuser Law Office, P.A., I was working on cases involving police officers and firefighters. While I was a law clerk, some of my first work involved writing court of appeals briefs on behalf of firefighters who were fighting for their right to health care continuation benefits. Since that time our practice has only grown in terms of the number and scope of firefighters and police officers we work with throughout this state. It’s my favorite practice area. I love working on firefighter and police officer cases, it’s extremely rewarding and it’s extremely interesting work. Not only that, but I do have a soft spot in my heart for firefighters because my dad was a volunteer firefighter in my small hometown for 25 years.

I’m honored to have the opportunity to represent police officers and firefighters and I’m very proud of the work we do at Meuser Law Office, P.A.

Jennifer Yackleyby Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen