Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Yer Sumner was injured when she fell while working for Jim Lupient Infiniti. Sumner filed a claim petition for workers’ compensation benefits. Lupient denied primary liability. After Sumner filed her claim petition, eleven entities (collectively, Intervenors), including two health-care providers that provided treatment to Sumner (collectively, Relators), moved to intervene as of right. Lupient objected to the compensability of the services for which several Intervenors, including Relators, sought reimbursement. Intervenors had their claims for reimbursement denied when they failed to attend a hearing before a compensation judge. Relators and Sumner appealed. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Relators’ reimbursement claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, because Relators were absent from the hearing, and none of the exceptions to the attendance requirement was met, the compensation judge did not err when he denied Relators’ claims for reimbursement. View "Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti" on Justia Law

Appellant was denied a promotion after based on the results of a civil service test conducted by the Richfield Police and Fire Civil Service Commission. Appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Commission’s promotional process failed to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. 419.06(9). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the term “records” under section 419.06(9) includes a candidate’s interview responses at the time the candidate is applying for a promotion; and (2) the Commission violated section 419.06(9) when it failed to consider records “kept in the regular course of the administration of civil service” as required by statute. View "Peterson v. Richfield Civil Serv. Comm’n" on Justia Law

RDNT, LLC, which provided assisted living and skilled nursing services, owned a campus consisting of two buildings. RDNT submitted an application to the City of Bloomington for a conditional use permit, seeking to expand its services by adding a third building to the campus. The City Council denied RDNT’s application, giving four reasons for its decision. The district court reversed the denial of RDNT’s application, holding that the City misapplied certain standards, misrepresented the impact of certain studies, and ignored certain evidence. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the City appropriately exercised its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City’s decision was not unreasonable arbitrary or capricious, as the City based its decision on a legally and factually sufficient ground, and the City properly considered RDNT’s proposed traffic-mitigating conditions. View "RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington" on Justia Law

Employee fractured her ankle on a staircase at her workplace. A workers’ compensation judge awarded benefits to Employee, concluding that the injuries “arose out of” her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed, relying on its previous decision in Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy. The Supreme Court stayed Employer’s appeal while it considered Dykhoff. The Supreme Court then reversed the WCCA’s decision in Dykhoff and remanded. On remand, the WCCA again affirmed, this time applying the “increased risk” test, which requires an employee to to show that her workplace exposed her to a risk of injury that was increased over what she would face in her everyday life. The WCCA relied on two factual findings to conclude that Employee’s injury was compensable under the increased risk test. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the WCCA’s decision was manifestly contrary to the evidence. Remanded. View "Arrowhead Senior Living Cmty. v. Kainz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant, a former employee of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), alleging that Defendant accessed Driver and Vehicle Services records without authorization in violation of the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). DHS denied Defendant’s request for defense and indemnification, concluding that Defendant’s actions were outside the scope of his employment. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the court of appeals seeking judicial review of DHS’s decision. The court of appeals remanded the matter to DHS with instructions to grant Defendant’s request, concluding that DHS’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, holding that the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction over Defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari and therefore did not have authority to hear this appeal. View "Nelson v. Schlener" on Justia Law

In 2012, the governing board of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center notified the hospital’s medical staff that it had approved the repeal of the medical staff bylaws and replaced them with revised bylaws. Avera Marshall’s Medical Staff, Chief of Staff, and Chief of Staff-elect commenced an action seeking a declaration that the Medical Staff had standing to sue Avera Marshall and that the former medical staff bylaws constituted a contract between Avera Marshall and the Medical Staff. The district court granted judgment for Avera Marshall and dismissed the case, concluding that the Medical Staff lacked the capacity to sue under Minnesota law and that the medical staff bylaws did not constitute an enforceable contract between Avera Marshall and the Medical Staff. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Medical Staff has the capacity to sue and be sued under Minnesota law; and (2) the medical staff bylaws constitute an enforceable contract between Avera Marshall and the individual members of the Medical Staff. Remanded. View "Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Avera Marshall" on Justia Law

Minn. Stat. 176.081(1)(a) requires employers and insurers to pay attorney fees calculated by a statutory formula not subject to judicial review. In this case, Respondent injured his back while working for Employer. Employer and its insurer (together, Relators) settled with Respondent. Respondent’s attorney then sought an award of contingent attorney fees in an amount that was calculated by applying the statutory formula in section 176.081 but which disregarded the upper limit set by the formula. Relators objected, arguing that, in the absence of judicial review to ensure a fee award is not excessive, application of the statutory formula violates separation of powers principles. The compensation judge applied the statutory formula and concluded that $13,000 would adequately compensate Respondent’s attorney but refused to consider whether the statutory fee was reasonable. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed the compensation judge’s fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court will recognize the Legislature’s statutory formula as presumptively reasonable, and, absent exceptional circumstances, further judicial review of an award based on the statutory formula is unnecessary; and (2) Relators failed to present any exceptional circumstances to challenge this presumption. View "David v. Bartel Enters." on Justia Law

LumiData, Inc. is a software company that sells a software program called SOLYS to retail suppliers. Between 2005 and 2008, LumiData did not file Minnesota sales tax returns or pay sales tax on its SOLYS sales. The Commissioner of Revenue assessed sales tax on LumiData’s SOLYS sales for the period at issue, concluding the software sales were subject to sales tax. LumiData appealed the Commissioner’s order to the tax court, arguing that its software sales were nontaxable because modifications it made to its software removed it from the definition of “prewritten computer software” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 297A.61(17). The tax court upheld the assessment, concluding that SOLYS was taxable, prewritten computer software. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because LumiData did not separately state its customization charges in its invoices, the tax court correctly concluded that the sales price for SOLYS was taxable as a sale of prewritten computer software; and (2) because the record did not establish that LumiData had reasonable cause to believe that its sales of SOLYS were not taxable, the tax court did not err in upholding the Commissioner’s penalty assessments. View "LumiData, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellant was stopped by police officers while driving in a 2003 Chevy Tahoe on suspicion that he did not have a valid driver’s license. Appellant was subsequently issued a traffic citation. The officers proceeded to conduct an inventory search of the Tahoe and found 225 grams of methamphetamine. The officers then searched Appellant and found $611 in cash. Appellant was charged with first-degree possession of a controlled substance. The vehicle and cash were seized, and Appellant was served with notice and intent to forfeit the seized property. Appellant filed a civil complaint demanding a judicial determination of forfeiture, arguing that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture actions and that the evidence supporting forfeiture was illegally obtained and must be suppressed. The district court granted summary judgment for the County. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to civil forfeiture actions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the exclusionary rule is applicable to civil forfeiture actions brought under Minn. Stat. 609.531-.5319; and (2) Appellant had standing to challenge the forfeiture of the vehicle and cash. Remanded. View "Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe" on Justia Law

Relator was injured while working for Employer. Relator began receiving workers’ compensation benefits in 2010. In 2012, Relator began receiving a retirement annuity from the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). At some point, Relator began receiving federal social security retirement benefits. While Employer was entitled under Minn. Stat. 176.101(4) to offset Relator’s permanent total disability benefits by the amount of her social security retirement benefits, the parties disagreed as to whether Employer was entitled to apply the offset to Relator’s PERA retirement benefits. A compensation judge granted Employer the offset. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed, concluding that Relator’s PERA retirement annuity was an “old age and survivor insurance benefit.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the reasoning in Ekdahl v. Independent School District #213, also decided today, section 176.101(4) does not permit permanent total disability benefits to be offset by public employee pension benefits. Remanded. View "Hartwig v. Traverse Care Ctr." on Justia Law