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.
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.