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

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

Minnesota Statute 299A.465 Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits

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

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

Health Insurance Cash Waiver Incentive Plans

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

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

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

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

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

Litigation and Case Law Update

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

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

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

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

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

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

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

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

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

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

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Is My PTSD Still Compensable if Caused by Numerous Traumatic Events?

Under the Minnesota Worker's Compensation Act, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be characterized as a personal injury or as an occupational disease. Minn. Stat. §176.011, subd. 15(a). PTSD may develop as a result of exposure to a traumatic event or multiple traumatic events, which cause a person's capacity to cope with stress to be overwhelmed and clinically disabling. Particularly in cases involving law enforcement or firefighters, a claimant's PTSD diagnosis cannot be tied to one particular event; rather, each new traumatic event compound stress until the stress becomes psychologically and physiologically disabling.

The Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act defines PTSD as "the condition as described in the most recently published edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association." Minn. Stat. 176,011, subd. 15(d). All the parties agree that the DSM-V is the most recently published edition of the DSM by the American Psychological Association. The statute requires psychiatrists, psychologists, and the court to use the DSM-V in determining whether an employee suffers from compensable PTSD.

The DSM-V explicitly states that PTSD may develop from an event or multiple events, noting that a person may witness "event(s)" as it occurs to others and "experiencing repeated" exposures, specifically citing police officers performing job duties involving witnessing repeated trauma to others. (DSM p. 271). Based upon the plain language of the DSM-V, examinees are not required to tie their symptoms to a single traumatic event. If this were the intention of the American Psychiatric Association, the authors would have written "traumatic event" and not "traumatic event(s)." (DSM-V at 271-72). Prong 4 under Criteria A of the DSM-V also demonstrates that medical professionals must examine multiple traumatic events. If an examinee qualifies only under the aversive details prong then they, by definition, would be referring to many or several incidents with regard to his or her symptoms listed in Criteria B-E because the fourth prong refers to repeated exposure. 

Unfortunately, insurers use "independent psychological examiners" or "IPEs," who are paid experts hired to find that you do not suffer from PTSD and if you do suffer from a psychological condition, the condition is not PTSD and is caused by non-work-related activities.

Typically, IPEs exclude employees from a PTSD diagnoses by attempting to circumvent the explicit text of the DSM-V by imposing additional requirements. An IPE's personal interpretation of how physicians should diagnose PTSD is above and beyond what the Minnesota legislature requires in the statute as well as the actual authors of the DSM-V.

IPEs may use the CAP-5, a structure interview that mirrors the symptoms described in the DSM-5. Physicians use the CAPS-5 to track fluctuations in PTSD symptoms, for research and to determine if treatment is working. IPEs may limit the CAPS-5 interview is limited to several of an employee's "worst" traumatic events and only inquire of symptoms within the past 30 days. The CAPS-5 has a few different versions, the lifetime and the "current" version, which examines reported symptoms within the past 30 days. The DSM-V does not limit reported symptoms to a set time frame, unlike the CAPS-5. (DSM-V at 271-280).

IPEs may also then creatively interpret psychometric testing to exclude claimants from a PTSD diagnosis. The MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF are not diagnostic tools are not required by the DSM-V. As much as both the legal and scientific community would desire a brain scan or a blood test to check for PTSD or any other mental health disorder, that's simply not possible. Additionally, the MMPI-2 is the only test that contains a scale specially tailored to examine the likelihood of PTSD; yet, IPEs may use the MMPI-2 RF that does not contain that scale.

If you believe you or someone you love suffers from work-related PTSD, contact the experienced attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation intensive case consultation. You may be entitled to thousands of dollars in benefits from PERA/MSRS, or under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

Meuser Law Attorneys Speak to Burnsville Police Officers and Firefighters

We are pleased to share that Ron Meuser, Jennifer Yackley, Mary Beth Boyce and Ashley Biermann of Meuser Law Office, P.A. were invited recently to speak to the City of Burnsville police officers, firefighters and HR Generalists. Ron and his team of experienced attorneys were asked to educate the group of first responders and HR Generalists on the basics of PERA disability, Minnesota work comp, as well as other benefits available in the event an injury occurs in the line of duty.

Once combined, Burnsville's police and fire departments have been operating since 1981 as individual units with the shared commitment to the preservation of life, safety and protection of property for the city's residents, business owners, and visitors. Although highly trained in safety measures to not only keep the public safe, but also the city's first responders as well, injuries do occur. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, police officers are four times more likely to be injured on the job than other occupations. The types of injuries to firefighters, such as cancer, are growing as well according to the National Fire Protection Agencies. The City of Burnsville understands the increased danger the police officers and firefighters face each day and want to ensure their first responders know what steps to take when an injury happens to ensure they receive the full benefits they are entitled, including continuation of health insurance and PTSD.

Ron, Jen, Mary Beth and Ashley met with the entire group and presented an overview and basic information. The attorneys went more in depth with the 20 police officers and 10 firefighters in attendance after the chiefs and HR Generalists exited the presentation. The following topics and others were discussed:

• The importance of timing when reporting an injury
• When to seek treatment for an injury
• PTSD
• Firefighters with cancer

Discussion included the types of benefits available to first responders who are injured in the line of duty, and information regarding post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) including the new workers' compensation rules that govern PTSD claims, as well as complex timing and coordination rules that apply specifically to Minnesota's peace officers who receive Duty Disability and workers' compensation 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 Minnesota's first responders for both work comp and PERA/MSRS disability claims. Sitting down with us to learn more about your potential claim is a lot like financial planning. We can explain what benefits you may be eligible for 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 the often-complex process easier to navigate.

Why choose Meuser Law Office, P.A. for your PERA, workers' compensation and personal injury representation? The difference in experience between Meuser Law and an attorney who isn't as versed in this area of the law can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars to your claim. Contact us today for a free no-obligation consultation by calling 1-877-746-5680. Ron Meuser and the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. are available to speak at ANY police or fire department in Minnesota to educate and inform on the valuable information and ensure injured first responders are receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.

by Ron Meuser
More posts by Ron

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

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.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Employee Who Separates from Date of Injury Employer Due to PERA Duty Disability Remains Entitled to Wage Loss Benefits

Accepting an award of PERA Duty Disability Benefits does not prevent firefighters, police officers, deputy sheriffs, and corrections officers from receiving wage loss benefits, including temporary partial disability benefits under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act.

A member approved for PERA Duty Disability benefits must separate from his or her position covered under the applicable plan, Police and Fire or Corrections, before receiving benefits. Members are encouraged to work in a different capacity. PERA Duty Disability benefits are not the same as PERA permanent and total disability benefits, members may work and still receive work comp benefits, PERA benefits, and income from a new employer. When the member begins working with a new employer and earns less than from the previous city or county employment, he or she will be eligible for temporary partial disability benefits from Minnesota workers’ compensation.

Temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits are wage loss benefits available to injured workers under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act who are able to return to work, but at a reduced wage because of his or her work injury. TPD is available for a total of 225 weeks but no more than 450 weeks after the date of injury. TPD is paid out at a rate of 2/3 of the difference between what the employee was making at the time of the injury or average weekly wage and the reduced earnings. Like other work comp benefits, TPD benefits are non-taxable.

In order to receive TPD injured workers must:

(1) Suffer a work-related injury
(2) Experience a loss of earning capacity as a result of that injury
(3) Be able to work, subject to restrictions
(4) Experience an actual loss of earning capacity

It is well settled law that “[a]n injured worker is not forever bound to his employer in order to retain his entitlement to benefits.” Boutto v. U.S. Steel Corp., slip. Op., No. WC06-288 (W.C.C.A. July 18, 2007). This means that an injured employee does not have to continue to work for the date of injury employer as a prerequisite to receiving work comp benefits. Anything less would force injured workers to be at the mercy of the employer.

This is especially the case when injured workers leave the date of injury employer as a result of PERA awarding PERA Duty Disability benefits. “The fact that the employee accepted an early retirement incentive from his employer for reasons unrelated to his injury or that he remains physically able to perform his previous job is not relevant to the question of whether the employee’s actual loss of earning capacity is causally related to the work injury.” Id. “[I]t is well settled that termination from employment for reasons not connected to the work injury does not preclude an award of temporary partial disability benefits.” Id.

Employers and insurers hate having to pay employees wage loss benefits who separate due to his or her PERA Duty Disability and will look for any excuse to cut off the payment of such benefits. Attorneys may have to file claim petitions or send letters to demand payment.

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. Sitting down with us for a consultation to learn more about your potential claims is a lot like financial planning. We can 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 Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

What if the Critical Incidents Which Cause PTSD Happen Prior To October 1, 2013?

Frequently, Minnesota police officers, firefighters, and corrections officers worry that they may not be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits arising out of his or her employment because the critical incidents pre-date October 1, 2013. Due to the nature of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), classifying PTSD as a specific injury with a specific “exposure” date may be illogical, especially in cases involving police officers who participate in many traumatic events during the course and scope of their employment. The law changed in Minnesota on October 1, 2013. PTSD is now compensable as a strictly mental-mental injury. The date of injury in these cases are particularly important because the date of injury determines what benefits are available to injured employees.

1. Minnesota Statute §176.011, subdivision 15, defines PTSD as an occupational disease

PTSD may also be considered an occupational disease. Therefore, the applicable date of injury is the date the employee became disabled or diagnosed, not a single specific traumatic exposure under Minn. Stat. §176.66, subd. 1. The employee’s entitlement to benefits is established by the law in effect on the date of disablement, not the law in effect on the last date of exposure. Stillson v. Peterson & Hede Co., 454 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 1990). As set forth in Criterion G of the DSM-5, the diagnostic tool used to diagnosis PTSD as required by Minnesota Statute 176.011, subdivision 15(d), in order for an employee even be diagnosed with PTSD, the employee must experience a later functional disturbance or impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of function. Many officers are exposed to traumatic events, but not all officers develop PTSD as they may not ever experience a functional impairment.

2. Minnesota Statute §176.011, subdivision 16, also allows PTSD to be defined as a Gillete type injury 

The date of injury in Gillete cases is the date of disablement and include ascertainable events that evidence the culmination of a disability, which include the date the employee initiated medical attention, date of a definite diagnosis, when the treating doctor determined the condition was work-related, and when the employee sought regular medical care. Schnurrer v. Hoerner-Waldorf, 345 N.W.2d 230 (Minn. 1984); Schaffer v. Minn. Orchestra, 53 W.C.D. 341 (1995); Reel v. Loftness Specialty Farm Equipment, slip op. (W.C.C.A. February 3, 2004); Neff v. Supervalue, Inc., 71 W.C.D. 217 (W.C.C.A. 2011); Cramer v. United Parcel Services., 72 W.C.D. 519 (W.C.C.A. 2012). As set forth in Criterion A in the DSM-5, PTSD may develop from the exposure to one or more traumatic events. It is questionable whether a physician could even pinpoint to a degree of medical certainty which event accounts for what percentage of the employee’s overall PTSD; therefore, the date of disablement is the logical date of injury.

3. A date of injury before October 1, 2013 does not bar an employee’s claim for benefits arising out of his or her PTSD post October 1, 2013

Even if an employee developed PTSD before October 1, 2013, his PTSD prior to October 1, 2013 would constitute a pre-existing condition. If subsequent traumatic events were substantial contributing causes or factors to the worsening of the condition, then his condition after October 1, 2013 would be compensable.

If you or someone you know suffers from PTSD due to a work-related accident or traumatic incident, you should consult with an attorney experienced in this area of the law. At Meuser Law Office, P.A., we have represented many clients with PTSD, including police officers, firefighters, first responders and correctional officers. We understand this nuanced area of the law and work with our client to ensure you receive the full benefits you are entitled. Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a no-obligation consultation today. Don’t let the insurance company unfairly deny you benefits as a result of their misinterpretation of the law surrounding PTSD in Minnesota. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

PERA Permanent and Total Disability vs PERA Duty Disability

PERA Duty Disability benefits and PERA Permanent Total Disability benefits entitle qualified members to 60% of the member’s average salary over his or her five highest-paid consecutive years of service, which is the equivalent to a retirement benefit based on 20 years of service. If members have in excess of 20 years of qualifying service he or she will receive an additional 3% for every year in excess of 20 years.

Police Officers and Firefighters injured in the line of duty face advantages and disadvantages when deciding to apply for PERA Permanent and Total Disability or PERA Duty Disability benefits.

(1) Requirements

PERA Permanent and Total Disability:  Members must demonstrate that they were disabled in the line of duty while performing inherently dangerous duties specific to the position covered by the plan and are unable to continue working in substantial gainful employment.

PERA Duty Disability:  Members must show that they were disabled in the line of duty while performing inherently dangerous duties specific to the position covered by the Police and Fire Plan. Members may be released to work in another capacity but are not able to fulfill all the normal duties of his or her date of injury position.

(2) Survivorship

PERA Permanent and Total Disability:  If the Duty Disability is total and permanent, the member is eligible for automatic survivor protection until age 55 or 5 years after the disability occurs, whichever is later. Survivor protection means should you die the spouse will receive a portion of the member’s disability pension for a set amount of time.

PERA Duty Disability:  If the member is approved for Duty Disability he or she may elect a survivorship option, such as single life, 50% or 100%. The monthly disability benefit is then reduced based on the option to pay for the elected survivorship option, which then functions like life insurance for the disabled member. When the Duty Disability converts to a retirement benefit, either in 5 years or at age 55, whichever is later, then the member may re-elect and change his or her survivorship option.

(3) Taxation

PERA Permanent and Total Disability:  The base 60% of the member’s five highest consecutive years of his or her salary remains non-taxable for life; however, the member’s benefits stemming from service in excess of 20 years is taxable.

PERA Duty Disability:  The base 60% of the member’s “high five” is non-taxable until the disability benefit converts to a retirement benefit. Benefits attributable to service in excess of 20 years is taxable, even when categorized as a disability benefit.

(4) Workers’ Compensation Offsets

PERA Permanent and Total Disability:  If PERA approves a member for permanent and total disability benefits, he or she remains in disability status for his or her lifetime and the benefit never converts to a retirement benefit.

If the member cannot work on a substantial gainful basis than he or she will not be eligible for temporary partial disability benefits in workers’ compensation benefits.

The member would likely be deemed “permanently totally disabled” in the workers’ compensation context as well. Permanent total disability benefits in work comp are completely offset by PERA disability benefits. Members frequently receive more in PERA disability benefits than they would be entitled to receive through work comp. Therefore, if members receive PERA permanent and total disability benefits they may not be entitled to any wage loss benefits from work comp.

PERA Duty Disability:  If PERA approves a member for Duty Disability benefits, then he or she is able to receive wage loss benefits from work comp in addition to his or her PERA benefits.

The member may receive work comp, PERA, and work in a different capacity. If he or she earns less money than the member did before the injury, then he or she may be entitled to temporary partial disability benefits. If these three sources of income are over 125% of the members “high five” income then the PERA benefit is reduced a dollar for every three dollars.

If the member is deemed “permanent and totally disabled” in the workers’ compensation context, then the member’s PERA Duty Disability benefits are offset until the PERA benefits convert to a retirement benefit.

If you are considering applying for PERA Duty Disability or PERA permanent and total disability benefits contact the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no obligation consultation. Each case is unique you may be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of dollars if you apply for the wrong benefit. Our knowledgeable attorneys will help you understand the often confusing PERA Duty Disability benefit law and ensure you receive the full benefits you are entitled to. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

Meuser Law Office, P.A. Attorneys Speak at the St. Paul Firefighters Union Meeting

Ron Meuser, Mary Beth Boyce and Ashley Biermann of Meuser Law Office, P.A. were proud and honored to speak at the St. Paul Firefighters IAFF Local 21 Union membership meeting on June 6th & 7th, 2017 held in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The St. Paul Firefighters Local 21 has been representing St. Paul’s bravest since 1918. They are dedicated to making sure their members have the safest working conditions, fair wages and benefits, and provide the best fire, rescue and paramedic services in Minnesota.

Ron, Mary Beth and Ashley met with firefighters each day and spoke about the complex issues Minnesota’s first responders face when they are dealing with an injury sustained in the line of duty. Topics included the types of benefits available to our state’s first responders who are injured in the line of duty, including workers’ compensation, PERA Police and Fire Duty Disability, Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits Minn. Stat § 299A.465, as well as unique situations. Ron, Mary Beth and Ashley also presented information regarding post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and firefighters, including the new workers’ compensation rules that govern PTSD claims, as well as complex coordination rules that apply specifically to Minnesota’s peace officers who receive Duty Disability and workers’ compensation benefits.  The attorneys also fielded many great questions from the attendees regarding the coordination of benefits, timing of filing for benefits and PTSD claims.

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 Minnesota first responders for both workers’ compensation and PERA/MSRS disability claims. Sitting down with us to learn more about your potential claim is a lot like financial planning. We can 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 the often-complex process easier to navigate. Contact us today for a free no-obligation consultation by calling 1-877-746-5680.

by Ron Meuser
More posts by Ron

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.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen

Am I Eligible for Rehabilitation Benefits if I Have Quit My Job?

Frequently, employers and insurers who are involved in Minnesota workers’ compensation cases do not understand that even if an employee separates from his or her date of injury employer, he or she is still entitled to rehabilitation services of a Qualified Rehabilitation Consultant (QRC). These rehabilitation services include job placement services. A QRC will help an injured worker return to work at a different job within his or her restrictions.

If an employer and insurer terminates rehabilitation services through a rehabilitation request and is refusing to provide job placement services, the injured worker should file a rehabilitation request. The issue must be certified as a dispute under Minnesota Statute § 176.081, subdivision 1 (c). After a mediator at the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) will determine whether a genuine dispute exists between the parties and the matter will be scheduled for a rehabilitation conference at DOLI.

As long as an employee remains a qualified employee under Minnesota Administrative Rules part 5220.0100 subpart 22, an employee is entitled to rehabilitation services, including job placement services. In order to be a qualified employee, the employee must be:

(a) permanently precluded or likely to be permanently precluded from his or her usual occupation or job he or she held at the time of the injury;
(b) cannot reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment with the date of injury employer; and
(c) can reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment with rehabilitation services.

By definition if PERA has awarded a Minnesota police officer, firefighter, first responder, or deputy sheriff Duty Disability benefits, he or she is a qualified employee. In order to receive PERA Duty Disability benefits, two doctors must opine that the worker’s disability prevents him or her from working as a police officer or firefighter for at least one year.

Once PERA awards an employee Duty Disability benefits he or she must separate from the county or city. If the police officer or firefighter is working light duty, he or she must separate within 45 days. The injured worker may return to work in a different capacity but he or she cannot work in a position covered by the PERA Police and Fire Plan.

Members who qualify for PERA Duty Disability benefits are actually incentivized to find employment in a non-police and fire plan position. If he or she is not working, the injured worker’s wages are capped at 100% of his or her “high five” between PERA benefits and workers’ compensation wage loss benefits. But if he or she is able to work elsewhere, the member’s wages are capped at 125% among PERA, work comp, and the new job. After the member’s wage reaches 125% then the PERA benefits are reduced a dollar for every three dollars.

Accepting PERA Duty Disability benefits do not signify that the employee is withdrawing from the labor market. The injured worker merely cannot work in the same capacity in which he or she worked before the injury and disabling condition. Injured workers should complete and track his or her job search in order to demonstrate a desire to return to work.

In the Minnesota workers’ compensation case, Erickson v. City of St. Paul, the employee resigned from his employer, who was accommodating his restrictions, in order to accept PERA benefits. (slip. op. (W.C.C.A. April 16, 2007)). The employer and insurer argued because he voluntarily resigned he was not qualified for rehabilitation services, specifically retraining benefits. The court noted that the employee qualified for PERA benefits because of his disability, not because he restricted and that whether an employee is “employed, voluntarily terminates his employment, retires, or relocates does not terminate his or her entitlement to rehabilitation services.”

If an employee does not resign from the position covered by the PERA police and fire plan, he or she will lose entitlement to non-taxable income, 60% of his or her “high five,” health insurance benefits, and survivor benefits. Refusing a job offer does not cut off rehabilitation services nor does being fired for misconduct. Hugill v. Benton County, 64 WCD 220 (2004); Conklin v. Becker County Dev. Achievement Ctr., Slip op., No. WC 10-210 (WCCA Apr. 28, 2011). The court noted in Boutto v. U.S. Steel Corp. that an employee’s decision to accept the employer’s retirement incentive package should not place him in a worse position than someone discharged for misconduct. (July 18, 2007 WC06-288.)

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. If your employer or insurer has denied rehabilitation services, contact an attorney at Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation consultation. Our knowledgeable attorneys handle Minnesota workers’ compensation cases on a daily basis and are very familiar with the most current laws to determine what you are eligible for. We will ensure you receive the full benefits you are entitled. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

by Mary Beth
More posts by Mary Beth

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.

by Jen Yackley
More posts by Jen