Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2004, Doctor informed Employer, a medical clinic, that he planned to exercise his rights under Employer's policy that rewarded length of service by giving benefits to physicians who were sixty years old or older and had at least fifteen years of taking night calls. Doctor agreed to postpone exercising his rights under the policy until the next year. In 2005, Employer told Doctor that the policy no longer existed. Doctor later withdrew from taking night call. As a result, Employer reduced Doctor's salary. In 2009, sued Employer for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, claiming Employer breached the policy by refusing to allow him to be exempt from night call without salary reduction. The district court granted Employer's motion to dismiss, holding that the two-year statute of limitations began to run in 2005 when Employer informed Doctor it would not honor its obligations under the policy. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that a new cause of action accrued each time a payment was due but not paid. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Doctor's cause of action accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run, in 2005, and therefore, Doctor's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the interpretation of approximately sixty collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the City of Duluth and its employees. Subject to certain conditions and exceptions, the CBAs guaranteed retired City employees health insurance benefits "to the same extent as active employees." The dispute in this case centered on the meaning of that phrase, specifically, whether the phrase guaranteed health insurance benefits to retirees to the same extent as employees who were active at the time of a retiree's departure, or to the same extent as current City employees. Several retired City employees filed a lawsuit, alleging that the City had wrongfully changed or threatened to change their health insurance benefits and claiming that CBAs guaranteed that health insurance benefits for retirees would be frozen as of the time of retirement. The district court held for the City. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's interpretation of the active-employees clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the CBAs unambiguously guaranteed health insurance benefits to retirees to the same extent as current City employees. View "Savela v. City of Duluth" on Justia Law

After suffering a work-related injury, Employee underwent surgery at a hospital owned by HealthEast Care System. The injury required surgical implantation of a spinal cord stimulator. Employer's worker's compensation insurance provider, State Auto Insurance, paid part but not all of the surgical expenses, asserting (1) the withheld portion of the expenses was attributable to a price markup added by HealthEast to the price paid by HealthEast for the implant hardware used in Employee's surgery, and (2) the manufacturer of the implant hardware should be required to charge directly for the implant hardware. The compensation judge found that Employer and State Auto were liable for the unpaid balance. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) HealthEast could charge for the implant hardware because when more than one health care provider is responsible for the creation of a service, article, or supply, the provider that provides the service, article, or supply in its final form is entitled to charge for it; and (2) a compensation judge does not have the authority to determine a reasonable value of a treatment, service, or supply that is lower than eighty-five percent of the provider's usual or customary charge. View "Troyer v. Vertlu Mgmt. Co." on Justia Law

George Frandsen was employed by Ford Motor Company when he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. Ford assumed responsibility for the injury and paid Frandsen temporary total disability (TTD) benefits pursuant to the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act. Later, the parties agreed to reclassify the TTD benefits Ford had previously paid to Frandsen as permanent total disability (PTD) benefit payments. After Frandsen turned sixty-seven years old, Ford petitioned the WCCA to discontinue payment of Frandsen's PTD benefits pursuant to Minn. Stat. 176.101, which states that permanent total disability shall cease at age sixty-seven because the employee is presumed retired from the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) denied Ford's petition, concluding that Ford had waived the retirement presumption by failing to expressly reserve the right to discontinue payment of Frandsen's PTD benefits in the settlement agreement. On review, the Supreme Court reversed the WCCA, holding (1) the retirement presumption applies unless the employee rebuts the presumption or proves knowing and intentional waiver by the employer, and (2) here the record lacked any evidence that Ford intended to continue paying PTD benefits to Frandsen after he turned sixty-seven. Remanded. View "Frandsen v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Employee was injured while working in Minnesota for Wisconsin-based Employer. Employee applied for Wisconsin and Minnesota workers' compensation benefits. Employer's insurance company, Travelers Insurance, covered the Wisconsin benefits but denied the claim for Minnesota benefits based on an exclusion of Minnesota coverage in Employee's policy. Employee then filed a claim for Minnesota benefits with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. After settling the claim, the Department pursued a petition for reimbursement it had filed against Employer. A compensation judge found that Employer was not insured for Minnesota workers' compensation liability and ordered Employer to reimburse the Department. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, concluding that Employer was entitled to coverage from Travelers under the reasonable expectations doctrine. On review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of a recent Court decision clarifying that the doctrine should not be used to provide coverage in contravention of unambiguous policy terms. On remand, the WCCA again reversed the compensation judge. On review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the WCCA had no authority to declare unambiguous language of an insurance contract to be invalid and unenforceable because the exclusion conflicted with Wisconsin statutory provisions and public policy. View "Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

While Timothy Allen worked as a sales associate for respondent Burnet Realty, he executed agreements to participate in respondent's legal administration program (LA Program). Under the LA Program contracts, Allen and respondent agreed to an allocation of expenses should a dispute arise related to Allen's work for respondent. In litigation commenced after he stopped working for respondent, Allen claimed that respondent violated Minn. Stat. 60K.47 because the LA Program contracts were insurance, and, as a result, respondent was required to be, but was not, authorized to engage in the business of insurance in Minnesota. Allen also claimed other relief on the basis that the contracts were insurance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, concluding that the contracts were not contracts of insurance. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to respondent, holding that the LA Program was not "insurance" under statutory definitions on statute or case law. View "Allen v. Burnet Realty, L.L.C. " on Justia Law

William Eldredge, an honorably discharged veteran and a firefighter employed by the City of Saint Paul, was notified by the City that it intended to terminate his employment. Eldredge challenged the termination under the Veterans Preference Act (VPA), which provided that Eldredge may not be removed from his job except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing. The Saint Paul Civil Service Commission granted summary disposition in Eldredge's favor. The City sought judicial review by petitioning for and securing the issuance of a writ of certiorari from the district court. The court dismissed the writ after concluding that the City had missed the filing deadline for appeals under the VPA. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding (1) the district court erred when it concluded the writ was untimely, and (2) because the writ was timely, the district court had jurisdiction to consider the City's appeal. Remanded. View "City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge" on Justia Law

Respondent Ronald Stagg was discharged from employment by Respondent Vintage Place, Inc. for excessive absenteeism and tardiness. Stagg applied for unemployment benefits. An unemployment law judge (ULJ) determined that Stagg was ineligible for benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct as defined by state law. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the ULJ, holding that Vintage Place failed to follow its own disciplinary policies when it terminated Stagg. Stagg argued that he relied on the employee manual, which defined Vintage Place's formal discipline procedures. Because he had not received a ten-day suspension--the last disciplinary step short of termination under Vintage Place's policy--Stagg did not understand his job was at risk for termination. The appellate court held that Stagg could have reasonably expected Vintage Place to follow its own disciplinary policy, and that Stagg's absenteeism did not amount to denial of unemployment benefits. Given the record presented, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's ruling, reversing it and reinstating the ULJ's decision.