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

‘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

Do I Need Work Restrictions to Make a Workers' Compensation Claim?

The simple answer is yes.

Following a work injury, it is of utmost importance that you seek medical treatment. In a typical Minnesota workers' compensation case, an employee will go to the emergency room or urgent care for an evaluation and will be given work restrictions at that time. Work restrictions can be as restrictive as "no work at all" until an employee can be evaluated by a specialist or have an MRI completed. Work restrictions may also be as simple as "no lifting more than 50 pounds." Once you receive work restrictions, you must provide documentation of these restrictions to your human resources department or supervisor immediately.

When you see your doctor following a work injury, it is very important that you inform your doctor that you sustained an injury at work and how the injury occurred. Tell the truth and be consistent with what you tell your doctors. If you are inconsistent in your narrative of how the injury occurred, the workers' compensation insurer may try to deny the claim on this basis.

At some point, your treating physicians may determine that you can return back to full-duty work and release you back to work without formal physical restrictions. Your doctor may think that he's doing you a favor in allowing you to return to work; however, unless your injury was mild or temporary in nature, your treating physician releasing you to return to work without restrictions can be problematic for your workers' compensation claim, in addition to your overall physical well-being.

What are my employer's responsibilities?

When you have restrictions relating to your work injury, your doctor will document the work injury and provide you with restrictions. An employer cannot fire you for having work restrictions and they cannot force you to work outside the scope of your physical restrictions. You may feel pressured by the employer to ask your doctor to lift your physical restrictions, but this could make the injury worse or cause re-injury. In addition, as a practical matter, returning to work without restrictions (even though you remain injured) puts you in a vulnerable position because if you are fired for being unable to perform your job, you will not be entitled to ongoing wage loss benefits. You need physical restrictions to receive wage loss benefits under the Minnesota Worker's Compensation Act.

If you've sustained a work-related injury and have work restrictions, an employer must either accommodate your restrictions in your current position, find a light duty position within your physical restrictions, or provide vocational rehabilitation and training if you are unable to work in your previous position.

Do I have to accept a light duty job?

When you have been injured at work and are unable to perform all the duties of your position, employers will often offer you light duty work. To be acceptable, this work must be within the physical restrictions issued to you by your doctor. If the light duty position pays less, or provides you with fewer hours, you will be entitled to a wage loss benefit known as temporary partial disability (TPD). The purpose of temporary partial disability is to return you to the economic status that you enjoyed before sustaining an injury on the job, and as such, it pays you the difference between what you were making at the time of the injury and what you are making in the light duty position.

Every light duty job is different. It is very important that you do not turn down or refuse a light duty job offer until you speak with an attorney. An experienced attorney will be able to analyze the job offer and determine whether it is physically and economically suitable. If it is, your safest course of action would be to accept the light duty position. If you do not, you run the risk of the workers' compensation insurer terminating your ongoing wage loss benefits.

Don't wait to get an attorney involved if you have a 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. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we keep our clients informed of the process as well as what to expect each step of the way. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Ashley Biermann
More posts by Ashley

What Can I Expect to Receive in a Workers' Compensation Settlement?

A question often asked by clients when meeting for the first time is "how much is my claim worth?" While there is no hard and fast rule when it comes to estimating the value of a Minnesota workers' compensation claim, there are a variety of factors in every claim that help determine a fair settlement value or range.

1. How long have you been receiving wage loss benefits?

Most wage loss benefits in the workers' compensation system have temporal caps. For example, you can only receive 130 weeks of temporary total disability benefits (TTD) for injuries occurring on or after October 1, 2013. In addition, you can only receive 225 weeks of temporary partial wage loss benefits (TPD) or approximately four and a half years. Because these wage loss benefits are capped, the number of weeks you have received benefits will affect the value of a Minnesota workers' compensation claim.

2. Average weekly wage, i.e., how much were you earning on your date of injury?

If the injured person is a high wage earner, the value of the claim will be greater than someone earning a lower wage. The average weekly wage for a claim is calculated based upon average earnings for the six months preceding the date of injury. As such, it is important to have an accurate average weekly wage calculation and to be using the most recent date of injury to ensure the greatest possible settlement from workers' compensation is received.

3. Did the insurer accept or deny your workers' compensation claim?

When a workers' compensation claim is accepted by the insurer, you generally have a stronger position going into a settlement conference or mediation. This is true because many times the insurer is paying the employee ongoing benefits. If your claim is accepted, there will still be a dispute with the insurer with regard to the "nature and extent" of the injury and the amount of the benefits owed but the insurer has admitted responsibility for the injury when a claim is accepted.

On the other hand, if a claim is denied and litigation is pending, the insurance company knows that there is a chance that they will not have to pay anything for the claim. If you go to court, there is a chance the insurance company will win, and this is factored into the insurance company's exposure analysis for your claim. For example, let's say you have a 50% chance of winning your claim. The insurance company will typically look at the overall exposure for your claim, calculate how much you would receive if your case went to hearing and we won on each of the claims then reduce that amount by 50%, (i.e., the estimated chance of success for the claim).

4. Did you sustain a permanent or temporary injury? 

This concept is relatively straightforward. If you sustained a serious injury and are issued permanent restrictions, the insurance company will understand that you will likely collect most, if not all, of your wage loss benefits. In addition, you will likely be entitled to a benefit known as permanent partial disability (PPD) for the loss of use or functioning of the affected body part. This benefit is not available to employees that have sustained minor injuries. Conversely, if you sustained a relatively minor injury, the claim will likely have a limited settlement value because the injured person is expected to make a full recovery and return to the date of injury employer at full wage earnings.

5. How strong is your medical support?

If there is medical support from a treating physician, linking the injured individual's current condition to a work-injury, the claim tends to be stronger. This is especially true if the treating physician is an experienced, well-respected specialist, such as an orthopedic surgeon, in the relevant area. Remember, the burden of proof in a workers' compensation claim is on the employee. This means that the injured employee is responsible for providing medical evidence to support the claims if the matter goes before a judge. As such, if a claims adjuster or a defense attorney gets a persuasive narrative report from a treating physician that supports your claims, they will understand that you will be much more likely to be successful at hearing, which adds value to your claim.

6. Who is representing you?

If you choose to represent yourself, you will be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to settling your claims. Minnesota workers' compensation is a complex, confusing area of the law and you will not know whether you are getting all the benefits to which you are entitled unless you have an experienced workers' compensation attorney. In addition, your employer will be represented by a claims adjuster or attorney that has significant experience in the area and they will not be looking out for your best interests.

If you are thinking about settling your Minnesota workers' compensation claim, it is of utmost importance that you check with a workers' compensation attorney before you do. This is especially true if you are a police officer or firefighter and also entitled to PERA or MSRS benefits because there are certain, applicable offset provisions that will apply to any workers' compensation settlement. A wrong decision could cost you thousands of dollars. Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free no-obligation consultation and claim evaluation. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we keep our clients informed of the process as well as what to expect each step of the way. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Ashley Biermann
More posts by Ashley

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.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Can I Be Fired for Reporting a Work Injury?

The short answer is no, not legally. Technically, an employer can terminate you for any reason, legal or not, but there is recourse that can be taken if you are fired or threatened with termination after sustaining an injury at work.

An employer must fill out a First Report of Injury after you report a work injury however, despite completing and filing this form, an employer may still doubt your veracity and the legitimacy of your injury claim. If this belief is communicated to the Minnesota workers’ compensation insurer, your claim may be denied. After the denial, the employer may feel justified in disciplining or firing you for filing a “false claim.”

Minnesota law does not allow an employer from discharging or threatening to discharge an employee for seeking workers' compensation benefits or in any manner intentionally obstructing an employee seeking workers’ compensation benefits. This provision allows an injured worker to bring a civil claim against his employer if the employee was fired or obstructed from bringing a workers’ compensation claim. In practice, these actions are fairly uncommon but they’re also essential. The action acts as a check against employers, allowing employees to recover the workers’ compensation benefits that they would have received if not for the unlawful interference of their employer.

This law does not mean that an employee can never be fired legally after sustaining a work-related injury. For example, if an employee already has an extensive history of absenteeism and then misses several days from work after a work injury without providing restrictions from his doctor, the employee may be terminated through the process set out in the employer’s standard policy. If your employer terminates you after filing a work injury and does not follow its standard policy, does not assist you in filing for workers’ compensation benefits, or does not allow you a reasonable opportunity to seek medical treatment, you may be able to bring a successful retaliation claim.

Furthermore, with regard to “false claims,” the employer may be able to fire you for reporting what they believe to be a false workers’ compensation claim. This, however, is risky for the employer because the court seems to be asking whether the employer had a “reasonable belief” of claim falsification. What is a reasonable belief of claim falsification? Again, it depends, but the consensus seems to be that the employer must conduct a thorough investigation of the employee’s allegation of work-related injury. In completing this investigation, the court looks at whether the employer conducted a detailed and fair investigation, and was not simply results oriented. It also should make sure that any such investigation is complete and not results oriented.

It is also worth noting that practical concerns influence employers with regard to discharging employees. If an employee’s claim is admitted, the employer and insurer will be on the hook for ongoing wage loss benefits, if they choose to terminate you. This results in a very real financial incentive for employers to find work for you after sustaining a work injury. This is still true, but to a lesser extent, for denied claims. Even if your claim is denied by the workers’ compensation insurer, you’re still able to fight for the benefits the insurer should have paid you and establish ongoing workers’ compensation payments from the date of termination forward.

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. Call us today at 877-746-5680.

by Ashley Biermann
More posts by Ashley

Is My Employer Required To Carry Workers’ Compensation Insurance?

Employers in Minnesota are mandated to carry workers’ compensation insurance for their employees under Minnesota Statute §176.181, subdivision 2. The legislature wants to ensure that injured workers have access to recovery if he or she suffers an injury on the job. Employees are generally defined as a person who performs services for another for hire. Employees include minors, part-time workers and non-U.S. citizens. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry is responsible for work comp insurance in Minnesota.

Under Minnesota Statute §176.041 in certain circumstances some types of employers are not required to carry work comp insurance. These types of employers include but are not limited to:

• Family farm employees (if paid less than $8,000 in cash wages over the last year)
• Independent contractors
• Household workers
• LLC or limited liability companies
• Closely held corporations
• Nonprofit associations

However, these types of employers may still elect to carry work comp insurance coverage and many do, so if you work for one do not assume they do not carry work comp insurance. You may check on the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry’s website at http://www.inslookup.doli.state.mn.us/ to search whether your employer carries a policy. Employers are also required to post a Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Employee Rights and Responsibilities poster in a conspicuous location for its employees. The poster must show the employer’s insurance carrier information, including a name and phone number.

If you believe that a business does not have workers’ compensation coverage you may report that company to the Department of Labor and Industry’s Special Compensation Fund by email or by phone at 651-284-5453.

If the employer is required to carry work comp insurance and fails to do so, injured employees may still receive benefits from the Minnesota Special Compensation Fund under Minnesota Statute §176.129. The Minnesota Special Compensation Fund may then receive reimbursement from the employer for benefits paid to the injured worker plus monetary penalties. The Minnesota Special Compensation Fund also administers Supplementary Benefits, which are a complicated specific type of wage loss benefit that may affect an injured worker who was injured before 1990. The Special Compensation fund also investigates whether the employer has coverage and steps in the place of the employer, if the employer failed to maintain coverage.

Some employers are self-insured as well, and thus responsible for paying out workers’ compensation claims. Generally large public entities are self-insured, such as the State of Minnesota or the City of St. Paul. The Minnesota Commerce Department must issue its approval for an employer to be self-insured for the purposes of workers’ compensation. The employer must prove its financial capability to be self-insured.

If you have sustained an injury in the course and scope of your employment in the State of Minnesota, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free no-obligation case consultation. Don’t wait to get an attorney involved if you have a Minnesota workers’ compensation claim. The process can be complex, but the knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. keep our clients informed of the process as well as what to expect each step of the way. We take the time with each client to help determine which benefits under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act you are entitled. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

Mounted Police Officers and Workers’ Compensation Injuries

In the state of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth maintain mounted patrol units. The Minnesota Sheriff’s Mounted Posse Association (MSMPA) is comprised of volunteer and reserve units of mounted deputy sheriffs across the state who assist the County Sheriff whenever appropriate. Mounted patrol units help with crowd control, crime control, search and rescue, and community outreach. It is estimated that one mounted police officer has the effect of ten officers on foot. Horses provide size, weight, and every officer is 10 feet tall on horseback, enhancing visibility. Mounted police officers can travel quickly to places that squad cars cannot travel.

Unfortunately, while performing crowd control duties on horseback can increase safety for officers and the public, horseback riding is still a dangerous activity. Although the horses used in mounted patrol units are chosen for their temperament and suitability for the job, horses are still animals who can react unpredictably in unknown situations. Even the sweetest most docile horse can trip, fall to the ground and inadvertently crush a rider.

To ensure safety, officers should follow certain precautions:

• Safety equipment. Wearing a helmet can prevent very serious head injuries. There’s no excuse for not wearing a helmet while riding.
• Wearing a helmet when working with horses while on the ground is also important. Loading and unloading horses into a trailer can be a very dangerous situation. While horses in the mounted patrol unit may be loaded and un-loaded multiple times a week, working with a 1,100-pound animal in a small space is hazardous. Turning out a horse at night back into the herd can also be dangerous. Some horses like other horses better than others and if you turn out into a group of horses standing near the gate and another horse bites the horse you are working with he may kick out and may even hurt you.
• Wearing a helmet while walking out to the pasture to catch a horse is also a smart precautionary measure. Sometimes horses may gather around you and get pushy, hoping the human has a treat or looking for attention. A horse could nip another horse and then someone could kick out or knock you down out in the field. Horses can strike out with their front or back hooves.
• Wear proper footwear around horses. Getting stepped on in boots versus flip flops is an entirely different experience.
• Don’t stand directly behind a horse. Talk to the horse when you are working with him or her to let the horse know where you are standing and to prevent startling the horse.
• Don’t loop a lead line, reins, or lunge lines around your hands. If the horse runs away you could become caught and dragged.
• Properly lead a horse into its stall. When returning a horse to its stall don’t just unclip the lead line from his halter, lead the animal into the stall, walk around the stall, turn him to face the stall door and then back out. This prevents you from getting crushed or kicked in a confined space.
• Tack and groom in the same way each time. This creates a pattern so it is less likely a crucial step is forgotten. Check and re-check girth tightness before you mount. Girths should be tightened slowly and each time the horse should be walked around before moving up an additional hole.

If you sustain an injury, even one which may seem minor at the time, it is important to report the injury to your supervisor. Waiting a few days after what seemed to be a sprain or strain and then reporting the injury may give the workers’ compensation insurance carrier an excuse to deny your claim.

Contact an attorney early in the process. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we field calls from many police officers and deputy sheriffs injured in the line of duty who may just need a few questions answered. Call us today at 877-746-5680 for a free no-obligation consultation with an experienced Minnesota personal injury, PERA disability, and workers' compensation attorney.

For more information on mounted patrol units in Minnesota check out the following websites:

• MSMPA www.mnmountedposseassn.com/home.html
• St. Paul www.stpaulmountedpolice.org/index.htm
• Minneapolis www.minneapolismountedpolicefoundation.org/home.html
• Duluth www.facebook.com/DPDMOUNTEDPATROL

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

Medical Treatment & The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act

Can I choose my treating physician?

Yes, you have the right to choose your treating health care provider. But, you must choose wisely because once you choose a treating physician, it becomes difficult to switch. As such, you also have to be careful about continuing treatment with the employer-recommended physician. The employer’s physician will be deemed to have been “selected” by you as your primary treating physician if you continue to treat with him or her.

Who may provide my treatment?

The Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) covers medical treatment for an employee injured within the course and scope of employment at a “health care provider.” A health care provider is defined as “a physician, podiatrist, chiropractor, dentist, optometrist, osteopath, psychologist, psychiatric social worker or any other person who furnishes a medical or health service to an employee.” Minn. Stat. 176.135, subd. 2(a). The WCA covers treatment with out of state medical providers but the fees paid are dictated by the workers’ compensation fee schedule. Practically speaking, this means that many out of state providers will be paid less for treating Minnesota workers’ compensation claims and they may not want to provide them with services as a result.

Can I change my treating physician?

After you’ve chosen or selected your treating physician and you’ve treated with this physician on two or more occasions, this physician is deemed your primary treating physician. This means that you have to provide a reasonable basis for a change of treating physicians if you don’t switch to a new physician within the first 60 days of treatment.

The case law is clear that you cannot change your primary treating physician for purposes of litigation—e.g., your doctor refuses to write a supportive narrative report or issue work restrictions. You can, however, change treating physicians if you lose confidence in your doctor. But, this loss of confidence must be supported by actual facts, and not the mere statement that you’ve lost confidence in your doctor. For example, you could indicate that you have lost faith in your doctor’s skill, you could point out that your condition has not improved under your doctor’s care, or you could indicate that there has been a breakdown in communication between you and your doctor. If you have evidence to support any of these rationales, the court would likely approve a change of primary treating physician.

If you change primary treating physicians without prior authorization from your workers’ compensation insurer, the insurer is not liable for treatment rendered by the new primary health care provider unless a change is later approved by the insurer or the court. The court may approve an unauthorized change in treating physicians if the change was required due to an emergency, or if prior approval could not have reasonably been obtained from the insurer.

Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation case evaluation and consultation. If you have questions regarding your right to medical treatment, wage loss or permanency benefits, the knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. will take the time to understand the intricacies of your case before making recommendations about how to proceed. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Ashley Biermann
More posts by Ashley