NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
Recent significant cases:
Tea v Ramsey Cty., 5 N.W.3d 114 (Minn. 2024)
For Minnesota workers' compensation defense, this case underscores the importance of expert testimony, reinforces PTSD compensability under statutory definitions, and provides a clear avenue for dismissing improperly pled psychological conditions like major depressive disorder (MDD). It also limits challenges to DSM-based PTSD diagnoses while reinforcing defense strategies centered on exposure thresholds and expert credibility.
This case reinforces that PTSD is a compensable occupational disease under Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 15, provided it meets the DSM criteria. The ruling confirms that Minnesota courts will defer to credible medical expert opinions when determining whether an employee’s PTSD is work-related. However, the ruling makes it clear that MDD alone is not compensable under Minnesota workers’ compensation law. Defense counsel can use this precedent to argue against the inclusion of standalone psychological conditions unless explicitly pled as consequential to PTSD. In this case, the employer successfully had the MDD finding vacated, setting a precedent for strictly interpreting psychological injury claims.
The Smith v. Carver Cnty., 931 N.W.2d 390 precedent played a crucial role, limiting the WCCA from independently assessing whether an expert’s PTSD diagnosis conformed precisely to DSM-5. This limits a defense strategy that challenges expert opinions by dissecting DSM compliance, shifting the focus instead to credibility and evidentiary weight of expert testimony.
The case highlights the necessity for plaintiffs to explicitly plead consequential injuries (e.g., MDD resulting from PTSD). From a defense perspective, this ruling strengthens motions to dismiss improperly pled psychological claims that are not explicitly tied to a compensable primary injury. This case emphasized repeated exposure to traumatic details as a qualifying factor for PTSD. Employers may attempt to distinguish future claims by arguing that an employee’s level of exposure was insufficient to trigger PTSD.
Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, No. A22-0518 (Minn. 2022)
This case has several significant implications for Minnesota workers’ compensation defense, particularly in the areas of PTSD claims, consequential mental injuries, and penalties for frivolous denials.
This decision expanded the scope of PTSD diagnoses under the DSM-5-TR test. Here, the court acknowledged that the DSM-5-TR may create a "lifetime" PTSD diagnosis, meaning that once an employee is diagnosed with PTSD, it may be difficult for employers to argue that the condition has been resolved. Relying on the Tea v Ramsey Cty., 5 N.W.3d 114 (Minn. 2024) precedent, compensation judges must defer to medical experts in determining whether an employee meets the DSM criteria for PTSD. However, judges are permitted to evaluate expert opinions in light of the DSM but may not independently interpret the DSM to make their own diagnoses. Accordingly, employers and insurers will face greater challenges in arguing that PTSD has resolved or no longer meets DSM criteria, potentially leading to longer-lasting claims and increased liability for PTSD-related wage loss and medical benefits.
The court expressly held that mental health conditions that develop because of a compensable PTSD injury are themselves compensable. This decision extends previous case law (e.g., Rohr v. Knutson Constr. Co. and Radermecher v. FMC Corp.) to apply to mental health conditions resulting from PTSD, such as other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorders (OSTD). Thus, employers may no longer argue that PTSD is the only compensable mental health diagnosis. If an employee’s PTSD leads to depression, anxiety, or other psychological conditions, those secondary conditions will also be compensable, significantly increasing the cost of claims.
Further, the court reinforced the statutory presumption (Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 15(e)) that PTSD in first responders (such as police officers) is presumed work-related unless rebutted by substantial evidence. Under the holding, employers and insurers must communicate all substantial factors used to rebut the presumption at the time of denial, or the denial may be deemed frivolous. Employers and insurers defending PTSD claims from first responders will need strong and immediate medical evidence to rebut causation. Delaying medical evaluations or failing to communicate reasons for denial can lead to penalties.
In addition, the court affirmed a 30% penalty on temporary total disability (TTD) benefits because the employer denied liability without substantial evidence until it obtained an independent medical report. This ruling reinforces Juntunen v. Carlton Cnty., 982 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2022) where the Minnesota Supreme Court emphasized that employers must have substantial evidence before denying liability, or they risk penalties. Employers and insurers must carefully evaluate PTSD claims before issuing denials. Any denial without substantial supporting evidence at the time of denial could lead to significant penalties and increased litigation costs.
Johnson v. Concrete Treatments, Inc., 7
N.W.3d 119 (Minn. 2024)
The court was asked to decide two issues (1) whether an employee can assert a direct claim for unpaid medical bills when the unpaid medical providers’ intervention interests were extinguished under Minn. Stat. Section 176.361; (2) whether the WCCA erred in affirming the compensation judge’s findings that Johnson sustained a permanent work-related injury in October 2018 and that 60% of the responsibility for Johnson’s low back condition is properly apportioned to that injury.
This case strengthens employees' ability to seek direct compensation for medical expenses, regardless of provider intervention, and reinforces the deference given to compensation judges' factual determinations on causation. Employers and insurers must be prepared to defend medical claims even when procedural defenses (such as lack of provider intervention) would have previously been successful.
The ruling clarifies that an injured employee retains the right to directly assert claims for medical expenses, even if a medical provider’s intervention interest has been extinguished under Minn. Stat. § 176.361. Previously, there was ambiguity as to whether an employee could still seek reimbursement for medical bills after a provider failed to intervene properly. The court's decision reaffirms that workers' compensation benefits, including medical expenses, are ultimately the employee’s right, and failure by a provider to intervene does not extinguish the employee’s claim. Employers and insurers can no longer rely on a provider’s failure to intervene as a complete bar to liability for unpaid medical expenses. Employers and insurers should ensure that denial of medical expenses is well-documented and supported by substantial evidence to withstand claims directly brought by employees.
The court upheld the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s 2018 work injury was a substantial contributing factor to his ongoing low back condition, even though conflicting expert opinions existed regarding apportionment. The ruling reinforces that factual findings on causation and apportionment are subject to deference unless manifestly contrary to the evidence. Employers and insurers face a high burden to overturn compensation judges’ factual findings on causation. Even minor errors in medical reports (such as a misdated MRI) may not be enough to discredit an expert opinion entirely. In practice, defense counsel should meticulously scrutinize expert reports for internal consistency and ensure that medical experts provide clear, well-supported opinions on causation and apportionment.
Statutory changes:
Minn. Stat. Section 176.137
The increase in the remodeling cap from $75,000 to $150,000 under Minn. Stat. § 176.137 has significant implications for workers' compensation defense in Minnesota, particularly for employers and insurers managing permanent disability claims.
First, the statutory increase doubles the employer’s potential financial responsibility for home modifications. Insurers and self-insured employers must anticipate higher costs associated with permanent disability claims, particularly for catastrophic injuries requiring extensive home modifications. Adjusters and risk managers must account for increased exposure when setting reserves for claims involving permanently disabled employees.
Previously, the $75,000 cap may have limited modifications to basic accessibility features (e.g., wheelchair ramps, widened doorways). The new $150,000 cap allows for more extensive renovations, including modifications to kitchens, bathrooms, and entire living spaces, leading to higher overall claim costs.
The statute continues to require certification by a licensed architect, but now includes an alternative approval process (i.e., through a certified building official or accessibility specialist, per Subd. 4(b)). This may create looser standards for approval, leading to less stringent scrutiny of requested modifications, increasing employer/insurer liability.
Subd. 3 allows for the purchase of a new residence if remodeling is impractical. The higher cap may lead to more claims for new home purchases, shifting liability from renovations to entire home acquisitions. Employers/insurers should evaluate whether a proposed new home purchase is necessary or merely a preference when contesting such claims.
This statutory increase significantly raises the financial exposure for employers and insurers in permanent disability claims. Employers and defense attorneys should anticipate higher costs, more extensive modifications, and increased litigation over necessity and scope of remodeling projects. The burden will fall on insurers to proactively scrutinize, negotiate, and contest unwarranted claims to control costs effectively.
Minn. Stat. Section 176.081, subd 1
The increase in the attorney fee cap from $26,000 to $55,000 under Minn. Stat. § 176.081 has significant implications for workers’ compensation defense in Minnesota, particularly for employers and insurers managing claims and litigation costs.
First, the higher fee cap makes workers’ compensation claims more attractive to plaintiffs’ attorneys, likely leading to increased litigation over disputed benefits. Plaintiff’s attorneys may take on complex medical and rehabilitation disputes, knowing they can recover higher fees.
Second, Employers and insurers face increased liability for attorney fees, particularly in cases involving disputed medical or rehabilitation benefits. The previous cap of $26,000 often limited extensive legal battles; with a $55,000 cap, attorneys may pursue longer, more complex litigation. Settlement values may increase as claimants’ attorneys push for higher fee recoveries in negotiations.
Third, Under Subd. 1(a)(1), attorney fees for medical or rehabilitation disputes are presumed covered under the 20% contingency fee model, unless inadequate. With the higher cap, attorneys may more frequently argue that contingency fees alone are insufficient, leading to more employer-funded fee awards. Under Subd. 1(c), attorneys can place liens on compensation payments for legal fees. The increased cap means larger portions of employee benefits may be withheld, possibly leading to more employee disputes over fee deductions. Insurers must ensure proper notice is given when withholding compensation for fees.
Lastly, the statute requires attorneys to file a fee statement and provide documentation of hours spent under Subd. 1(d). Employers and insurers should closely review fee requests, challenging excessive or unjustified fees. Under Subd. 1(f), fees not claimed within 12 months must be released to the employee, giving insurers a potential cost-containment strategy.
Taken together, the increased fee cap significantly raises litigation exposure for employers and insurers, incentivizing more aggressive claimant representation and longer legal disputes. Employers should prepare for higher costs, more frequent attorney fee claims, and increased challenges to excessive fees while implementing strategies to mitigate financial impact.
The Minnesota Supreme Court issued its ruling in Johnson v. Concrete Treatments, Inc. on May 29, 2024. The Court overruled the WCCA’s prior ruling that where potential intervenors’ interests had been extinguished and the employee’s attorney did not unequivocally establish representation of parties which had not intervened in the matter, the attorney could not make direct claims for their interests. Writing for a unanimous Court (minus Justice Hennesy, who had not yet joined the Court while this matter was being considered), Justice Procaccini held that “even if a medical provider itself is barred from bringing a claim for medical expenses because it sought to intervene after the statutory deadline, the employee’s right to assert a direct claim for those medical expenses endures.”
This essentially does away with the holding of Duehn v. Connell Car Care, Inc. (WCCA 2017), where the WCCA concluded that the employee could not assert a claim for medical expenses owed to that medical provider because the employee’s attorney did not establish dual representation of the employee and the untimely intervenor at the hearing.
Here is the decision in full:
https://mn.gov/workcomp-stat/sup/Johnson%20Daniel%20-%20sup%20-%2024.html
(Summary prepared by Attorney Lucas Cragg of Heacox Hartman)
April 2024 Case Law Update
Troy Faughn v. Northern Improvement Company, Jan. 10, 2024
Jurisdiction – Out-of-state Employment
Statutes Construed – Minnesota Statutes § 176.041, Subdivision 3
Where the employee was at his current residence in Minnesota when he was offered and accepted a seasonal job at a North Dakota jobsite, for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3, the employee was hired in the state of Minnesota.
Jurisdiction – Out-of-state Employment
Statutes Construed – Minnesota Statutes § 176.041, Subdivision 3
Where an employee is hired in the state of Minnesota, by a Minnesota employer, and is injured while temporarily working outside the state of Minnesota, the compensation judge properly determined that the employee’s injury is compensable under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act.
Affirmed.
Gerald Bauer v. Flint Hills Resources, Jan. 26, 2024
Permanent Total Disability – Retirement
Statutes Construed – Minnesota Statutes § 176.101, Subdivision 4
The statutory presumption of retirement under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2016), controls for the employee’s date of injury as the 2018 amendment to the statute does not have retroactive effect.
Permanent Total Disability – Retirement
The record as a whole supported the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee had failed to rebut the presumption that he had retired at age 67, and the judge did not err by noting the fact that the employee had not sought to supplement his income by returning to work or from other sources.
Practice and Procedure – Dismissal
The compensation judge did not abuse her discretion in dismissing the employee’s claim with prejudice upon determining that he failed to rebut the retirement presumption of Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, as the decision was a final order resolving that issue.
Affirmed.
Andrew Thompson v. Minnesota Trial Courts – District 4 and State of Minnesota Department of Administration, Jan. 26, 2024
Arising Out of and in the Course Of
Although the employee was incidentally carrying a work laptop and other work-related materials while commuting to work when he slipped on an icy public sidewalk, substantial evidence supports the finding that the employee failed to meet the “arising out of and in the course of” employment requirements of Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 1, where the compensation judge could reasonably find an absence of a sufficient causal connection between the employee’s injury and his employment under the “special hazard,” “street risk” or “special errand” exceptions.
Affirmed.
Minnesota Case Law Update—January 2024
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Tea v. Ramsey County et al., No. WC22-6493 (W.C.C.A. July 28, 2023).
The employee was a licensed social worker working as an adult mental health case manager who learned that in February 2020, one of her clients murdered his girlfriend. The employee initially heard about the incident over the telephone and subsequently through work meetings and conversations where the details of the criminal act were discussed in depth. The employee also conducted her own independent research outside of work via the internet and other news outlets.
The employee filed a First Report of Injury alleging work-related secondary trauma stemming from the violent act committed by her client. She underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with PTSD based on the DSM-5.
The employer and insurer initially accepted primary liability and began administering the claim. They made arrangements for an independent psychological evaluation and their expert opined that the employee did not meet criteria for PTSD under DSM-5. The employer discontinued benefits based upon that opinion.
The employee underwent a third psychological evaluation with a plaintiff’s expert who agreed with the first doctor that the employee met the DSM-5 criteria for PTSD as a result of her repeated exposure to the details of the murder. He also diagnosed major depressive and anxiety disorder. He specifically opined that Criteria A4 was met when the employee initially learned of the murder and with subsequent repeated exposure to the details for the next several days.
At hearing, the compensation judge found the employee sustained work-related PTSD and major depressive disorder and awarded workers’ compensation benefits. The employer appealed.
On appeal, the employer argued that the adoption of the third doctor’s opinion was erroneous and not supported by the evidence. The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals held that it could not consider arguments as to whether the expert physicians misapplied the DSM requirements to the facts of the case pursuant to the holding in Smith v. Carver County (2019). On that basis, the WCCA affirmed the compensation judge’s findings that the employee’s expert physicians rendered credible medical opinions.
The W.C.C.A vacated the findings that the employee had major depressive disorder. That condition was not pled as consequential to the PTSD claim and major depressive order standing alone is not compensable. So, the judge could not find that as a work-related, compensable condition.
Arising out of and in the Course and Scope (safe ingress/egress)
Chad Olson v. Total Specialty Contracting, Inc., et al., No. WC23-6510 (W.C.C.A. November 9, 2023)
The employee was working as a journeyman heat and frost insulator for an employer who was subcontracted to work on a construction project on the University of Minnesota campus. He was scheduled to meet with another subcontractor to discuss the job. The meeting was set to take place in an area enclosed by a chain link fence and gates because it was closed to the public. The employee was instructed to park nearby, walk across the street and between two buildings, following the fence until he reached the gate and then enter the gate and the building.
When he arrived for the meeting, the employee was already wearing his vest, work boots, pants, hard hat and safety glasses. He arrived for the meeting at 5:45 a.m. and followed the directions for entrance. The chain link fence encroached upon the cement walkway which was covered with wet, frosty leaves and the area was dimly lit. Within five to ten feet of the gate entrance, the employee slipped and fell, sustaining injuries to the back and ankle. He could not explain the cause of his fall but testified that he assumed he slipped and fell due to the wet leaves.
The employer and insurer denied that the injury arose out of and in the course and scope of employment because the employee didn’t know what caused the injury and there was no evidence connecting the injury to the employment. The employer and insurer also took the position argued that the injury occurred outside the perimeter of the construction site and occurred 15 minutes prior to the meeting, so did not meet the time and place requirements of a compensable claim. Similar to the Dykhoff case, the asserted that it was an unexplained fall on a flat surface prior to the work day and outside the work premises and therefore, not compensable.
The compensation judge found the employee’s injury was compensable and arose out of and in the course and scope of employment because the location where he fell was “used as an extension of the job site” and the walkway was not well lit and was covered in wet leaves immediately adjacent to the fence surrounding the site.
On appeal, the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed the compensation judge, explaining that while the employee was not certain what caused the fall, the court could not conclude that the injury was unexplained and that the set of circumstances (wet leaves covering the walkway, poor lighting, unfamiliarity with the area, limited entry and fence encroaching on the walkway while wearing PPE to attend a meeting necessary to begin his work for the employer) increased the employee’s exposure to injury and established a causal connection between the work injury and employment.
Injuries Caused by a Third Party
Profit v. HRT Holdings d/b/a Doubletree Suites and CNA Claim Plus, et. al., No. WC21-6438 (W.C.C.A. April 14, 2022).
The employee was in the course of his employment when he was attacked by an assailant who had checked into the hotel where the employee worked. The employee and the assailant were acquainted and the assailant believed the employee had poisoned his uncle. The compensation judge determined that the assailant assaulted the employee solely for personal reasons entirely unconnected to the employment and that therefore, the employee’s claims were barred by the intentional act defense set forth in Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16. In doing so, the compensation judge concluded there is no exception to the intentional act defense where the assailant’s motivation arises from mental illness. On appeal, the denial of benefits was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Notice Requirements for Repetitive Use (Gillette) Claims
Schmidt v. Walmart, No. WC21-6437 (W.C.C.A. May 16, 2022)
The employee suffered from chronic left knee pain that required surgical intervention twelve years before her employment began with employer. She maintained that she was symptom-free and working without restriction leading up to the alleged work injury. She was hired by the employer in 2005 and worked full time in a variety of different roles until 2011. In September 2011, she reported constant aggravations of her knee at work although she didn’t seek medical treatment until May 2015.
When seen by a physician in 2015, she was diagnosed with left knee arthritis and recommended for a total knee arthroplasty. The physician opined that the condition was not due to the alleged work-related incident from September 2011. A revision surgery was performed on January 16, 2019, but the employee found it difficult to work when she resumed her duties with the employer. She sought legal counsel in March 2019 a filed a claim for a repetitive use (Gillette) injury to the left knee.
The medical expert for the employer and insurer opined that the condition was not work-related but instead, due to preexisting osteoarthritis. The treating doctor opined that the employee’s preexisting condition had been accelerated by her work for the employer.
At hearing, the workers’ compensation judge found that the employee suffered a Gillette injury on October 27, 2015, that she provided proper notice of the injury to the employer, and that she did not withdraw from the labor market. The employer and insurer appealed.
On appeal, the employer and insurer argued that the employee knew her work activities were causing left knee symptoms in September 2011, and that said date triggered the statutory obligation to give notice of injury to the employer. They also argued that by giving notice to the employer in March 2019, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
The court rejected that argument and felt that it was reasonable to conclude that the Gillette injury culminated around the time the employee’s work activities caused her to be disabled from work during surgery and recovery. Moreover, the court reasoned that notice was properly given in March 2019 because prior to retaining legal counsel, the employee was unaware that repetitive minute trauma culminating in an injury could be a compensable work-related injury.
PART ONE: CHANGES EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2023
ATTORNEY FEES & DISPUTE CERTIFICATION
Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subdivision 1c has been amended to state that fees under the chapter are “available to an attorney who procures a benefit on behalf of the employee” upon genuinely disputed claims or portions of claims. However, unless the employee is represented by an attorney in other litigation pending at the Office of Administrative Hearings, a fee may not be charged for services with respect to a medical or rehabilitation issue performed before the attorney has filed with the commissioner and served upon the employer/insurer (and their attorney, if any) “a request for certification of dispute containing the name of the employer and its insurer, the date of the injury, and a description of the benefits claimed” and the department certifies that there is a dispute and that it has tried to resolve the dispute.
If the department has not issued a determination of whether a dispute exists within 30 days of the filing of a request, the dispute shall be certified if all the following apply:
(1) the insurer has not approved the requested benefit;
(2) the employee, the employee's attorney, or the employee's treating provider has submitted any and all additional information requested by the insurer necessary to determine whether the requested benefit is disputed or approved; and
(3) the insurer has had at least seven calendar days to review any additional information submitted.
Non-Emergency Surgery Disputes
If an employer/insurer has requested a second opinion (pursuant to 176.135) or an examination (pursuant to 176.155), a dispute shall be certified if 45 days have passed following a written request for a second opinion or examination, if the three conditions enumerated above are met as well. Cross-reference the amendments to Minn. Stat. 176.135, subdivision 1a for further details on procedures for second opinions on requests for non-emergency surgeries, as discussed below.
CUSTOMIZED MEDICAL ITEMS ARE PROPERTY OF THE EMPLOYEE AND MUST BE REPLACED
Minn. Stat. § 176.135, Subdivision 1(d) was amended to specify that any “artificial members, glasses or spectacles, artificial eyes, podiatric orthotics, dental bridge work, dentures or artificial teeth, hearing aids, canes, crutches, or wheel chairs” that had been customized specifically for an injured worker are the property of the injured worker. If any of these items
were damaged by reason of an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment, the employer shall furnish their replacement or repair. An employer/insurer’s inability or refusal to timely provide these items, will make it liable for the reasonable expense incurred by or on behalf of the employee in providing them.
REQUESTS FOR NON-EMERGENCY SURGERY AND SECOND OPINIONS
Minn. Stat. 176.135, subdivision 1a(a) was amended to specify that if an employer or insurer requires an employee to get a second opinion before undergoing an non-emergency surgery, the expense of that second opinion shall be paid by the employer or the insurer (the previous language only mentioned the employer).
Language stating that “the failure to obtain a second surgical opinion shall not be reason for nonpayment of the charges for the surgery. The employer is required to pay the reasonable value of the surgery unless the commissioner or compensation judge determines that the surgery is not reasonably required” has now been removed from the statute. The new language states that if an employer or insurer receives a request for non-emergency surgery, it must respond in writing no later than seven calendar days after receiving the request from the health provider or the employee either: approving the request, asking for additional information, requesting a second opinion, or requesting an examination by a physician chosen by the employer (under 176.155).
Subdivision 1a(b) has now been added to the statute. It states that if the employer or insurer requests a second opinion, it must notify the employee and the health care provider of this request within seven calendar days of the request for non-emergency surgery. If the authorization of the non-emergency surgery is denied within seven calendar days of receiving the second opinion, the health care provider may elect to perform the surgery, subject to a determination of compensability by the commissioner or compensation judge.
Subdivision 1a(c) has also been added. It states that “failure to obtain a second surgical opinion is not reason for nonpayment of the charges for the surgery. The employer or insurer is required to pay the reasonable value of the surgery unless the commissioner or compensation judge determines that the surgery is not reasonably required.”
CHARGES FOR MEDICAL BILLS AND RECORDS
Minn. Stat. § 176.135, subdivision 7 has undergone significant amendments, mostly limiting the dollar amounts that health care providers can charge for their records.
Paragraph (a) has added language specifying that health care providers may charge for copies of their records or reports pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 5219.0300, and directs the commissioner to adopt, by rule, a schedule of reasonable charges that will apply to charges not addressed by paragraphs (d) and (e) (see below).
2
Paragraph (d) was added to the subdivision, it provides that:
(1) Health care providers must notify requestors of the estimated cost before sending copies of records. If the requestor approves the costs and record copies are provided, the payment due is the applicable fee under paragraph (e) (see below);
(2) Health care providers shall not require prepayment for the costs of copies unless there is an outstanding past-due invoice for the requestor for previous records requests;
(3) Health care providers shall provide copies of medical records in electronic format;
(4) The charges scheduled under paragraph (e) includes fees for retrieval, downloading, or other delivery of records;
Paragraph (e) then provides the following limits for how much a health care provider may charge for any records provided under paragraph (d):
1. No more than $10 if there are no records available;
2. No more than $30 for records of up to 25 pages;
3. No more than $50 for records of up to 100 pages;
4. No more than $50, plus and additional 20 cents per page for pages 101 and above; or
5. No more than $500 total for any request.
MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
Minn. Stat. § 176.155, subdivision 1 was amended, largely to provide further parameters regarding requests for extension of time for file I.M.E. reports. Paragraph (a) added language allowing employees to have a “witness” present at any examinations performed that the request of the employer (previously the paragraph only allowed employees to have “a personal physician” present at their own expense).
Paragraph (b) removed language providing that IME reports must be made available to the employee or employee’s representative upon request, and now states that: regardless of whether litigation is pending, the report must be served upon the employee and employee’s attorney no later than 14 days within the issuance of the report or written statement.
Paragraph (d) states that “any request for a good cause extension pursuant to paragraph (e) must be made within 120 days of service of the claim petition” with the following exceptions:
1. There has been a change to the employee’s claim regarding the nature and extent of the injury;
2. There has been a change to the permanency benefits claimed by the employee, including a change in permanent partial disability percentage;
3. There is a new claim for indemnity benefits; or
4. The employment relationship is not admitted by an uninsured employer.
3
SCOPE OF .239 CONFERENCES
176.239, subdivision 6 was amended to state that “only reasons specified on the notice of discontinuance shall provide a basis for a discontinuance, unless the parties agree otherwise,” striking the word “information” from that sentence. This appears to indicate that
.239 conferences will be decided much more on just the four corners of the reasons provided on Box 3 Notices of Intent to Discontinue, and that Employer/Insurers may not be able to rely on providing additional information or arguments not previously raise in the discontinuance notice at the time of the conference.
However, subdivision 7 adds the term “exhibits filed by the parties with the office” to “information provided by the parties at the administrative conference” as the information to be considered in issuing administrative decisions on .239 conferences.
CLAIM PETITION PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS
176.291 has been amended, apparently to require greater specificity and documentary support in Claim Petitions, especially those asserting multiple claims. Under paragraph (b) the petition shall state and include: the extent and character of each injury; copies of medical records supporting each claim asserted; copies of other information in support of the claim, witness information for all known witnesses to be called in support of each injury and claim; the nature and extent of each claim.
Paragraph (c) now allows “incomplete” petitions to be stricken or dismissed from the calendar pursuant to 176.305, subd. 4. Further, an employee who has filed a claim petition shall provide a list of their physicians and health care providers who have provided treatment for same/similar conditions as well as authorizations for relevant information, data, and records within 14 days to any requester (previously it was 30 days).
CASES WITH DEFICIENT PETITIONS MAY STRICKEN FROM THE CALENDAR AND DISMISSED IF NOT CORRECTED IN 180 DAYS
176.305, subdivision 4 now allows a compensation judge, upon a properly served motion, to strike a case from the active trial calendar after the employee has been given 30 days to correct a deficient petition if the information on the petition was incomplete (see the amendments to 176.291 above). If a case has been stricken from the calendar for 180 days (previously, it was 1 year) or more and no corrective action has been taken, the judge may dismiss the case (sua sponte, or upon the motion of a party). The petitioner must be given 30 days notice of the proposed dismissal before the dismissal is effective.
4
PROCEEDINGS WHEN ANSWER NOT FILED (.331 HEARINGS)
In an apparent move to provide a bit of a “speedbump” for a full-blown hearing on a short turn-around time, 176.331 was amended to have OAH set the matter for an immediate pretrial conference and hearing when an adverse party fails to file and serve an answer or obtain an extension to answer. The adverse party that failed to file and answer or appear at a pretrial conference may appear at the hearing, but will not be granted a continuance except for good cause.
CESSATION OF DEPENDENT BENEFITS NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Minn. Stat. § 176.111, subdivision 16 added language stating that the cessation of dependent benefits (due to the death or marriage of any dependent) requires notice pursuant to subdivision 23.
Subdivision 23, in turn, is a new subdivision stating the procedural requirements of notice of cessation of dependency benefits. An employer seeking to discontinue dependency benefits must file with the commissioner and serve upon the dependent written notice within 14 days of the discontinuance. The notice must state the date the benefits will be discontinued and provide a statement of facts clearly indicating the reason the individual will no longer receive dependency benefits and is no longer considered a dependent under § 176.111. Any document relied upon for the discontinuance must be attached to the notice. Failure to file the notice as required may result in a penalty under § 176.231, subdivision 10.
PART TWO: CHANGES EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2023
CHANGES TO THE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULE: EFFECTIVE FOR INJURIES ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 202
176.101, subdivision 2a, has been significantly amended. Paragraph (a) now contains a provision stating that “during the 2026 regular legislative session, and every even-year legislative session thereafter, the Workers' Compensation Advisory Council must consider whether the permanent partial disability schedule in paragraph (b) represents adequate compensation for permanent impairment.”
Paragraph (b), in turn, provides significantly higher base dollar amounts by which the impairment rating percentages are derived. This appears to be an approximately 31% increase for lower-end percentages, and it tapers to an approximate 5% for the high ratings. For example, the amount for impairment ratings of less than 5.5% is going to $114,260 (from $78,800), whereas ratings of 95.5% and higher only go up to $567,840 from $540,800.
5
HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT FEE SCHEDULE
Minn. Stat. §176.1364, subdivision 3, which addresses the Hospital Outpatient Fee Schedule (HOFS) was amended to included a new paragraph (g), which directs the commissioner, beginning October 1, 2023 to October 1, 2025, to adjust the conversion factors provided in the subdivision to result in an overall reduction in total payments of hospital outpatient service by 3% for services effective October 1, 2023, a further 3% overall reduction starting October 1, 2024, and then a 4% overall reduction for services effective October 1, 2025.
Minn. Stat. §176.1364, subdivision 6 is repealed.
PART THREE: POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER STUDY
This new legislation directs the commission of labor and industry to “conduct a study to identify systemic or regulatory changes to improve the experience and outcomes of employees with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder.” This study must:
(1) identify evidence-based methods and best practices for early detection and treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder;
(2) review models, including those used in other jurisdictions and systems, for delivering mental health wellness training or employee assistance programs, treatment for post- traumatic stress disorder, and benefits related to post-traumatic stress disorder. Review must include outcomes and cost considerations;
(3) identify any programs in other jurisdictions with effective prevention, timely and effective medical intervention, or high return-to-work rates for employees with work- related post-traumatic stress disorder;
(4) review the definition of post-traumatic stress disorder provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 176.011, subdivision 15, paragraph (d), and compare to definitions in other jurisdictions; and
(5) consider the list of occupations subject to the rebuttable presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 176.011, subdivision 15, paragraph (e).
Any relevant state agency, and specifically the Public Employees Retirement Association, Minnesota State Retirement System, and Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Insurers Association are directed to cooperate with the commissioner in conducting this study. The commissioner must report the results of this study to the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council and the chairs and ranking minority members of the house of representatives and senate committees with jurisdiction over workers’ compensation by August 1, 2025.
6
7
PART FOUR: CHANGES EFFECTIVE “THE DAY AFTER FINAL ENACTMENT”
“RELATIVE VALUE FEE SCHEDULE” DEFINED
Minn. Stat. § 176.011 was amended to include Subdivision 17b which provides the statutory definition of “relative value fee schedule” as “the medical fee schedule adopted by rule under section 176.136, subdivision 1a, using the Physician Fee Schedule tables adopted for the
federal Medicare program.”