Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent filed a complaint against his former employer, U.S. Steel Corporation, alleging retaliatory-discharge and threat-to-discharge claims under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The district court granted U.S. Steel’s pretrial motion to quash Respondent’s demand for a jury trial on the retaliatory-discharge claim. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Respondent on his threat-to-discharge claim and rejected Respondent’s retaliatory-discharge claim. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding (1) Respondent’s retaliatory-discharge claim, which sought only money damages, was legal rather than equitable in nature, and therefore, Respondent was entitled to a jury trial on that claim; and (2) the district court correctly denied U.S. Steel’s motion seeking to assert a Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to vicarious liability for Respondent’s threat-to-discharge claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Respondent had the right to a jury trial on his retaliatory-discharge claim; and (2) U.S. Steel may not assert a Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to Respondent’s threat-to-discharge claim. View "Schmitz v. U.S. Steel Corp." 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

Relator was injured while working for a School District. Relator eventually sought and was awarded permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. Relying on Minn. Stat. 176.101(4) and claiming that the statute authorizes an offset for “any old age and survivor insurance benefits,” the School District sought to offset its PTD benefit payment by the amount of government-service pension benefits Relator was receiving. A compensation judge concluded that the School District was not entitled to the offset. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, concluding that government-service pension benefits are included in the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits” and therefore can be offset from the School District’s disability-benefit payment. The Supreme Court reversed the WCCA and reinstated the decision of the compensation judge, holding that the phrase “old age and survivor benefits” refers only to federal social security benefits, and therefore, the WCCA erred when it applied section 176.101(4) to Relator’s retirement annuity. View "Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. #213" on Justia Law

Employee was injured in a work-related accident. Employee obtained approval for surgery from a union-sponsored benefit plan (the Fund) and proceeded with the surgery at a Hospital. After a hearing, a workers’ compensation judge concluded that the surgery was not reasonable and necessary and ordered Employer to reimburse the Fund for the medical bills but also concluded that Employer could seek reimbursement of the expenses from the medical providers. The Hospital was not given notice of that hearing. Before a second hearing on Employer’s request for reimbursement, the Hospital intervened. The compensation judge ordered the Hospital to reimburse Employer. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, concluding that the automatic-reimbursement rule announced in Brooks v. A.M.F., Inc. should be extended to the Hospital because it was not given notice of the first hearing. The Supreme Court reversed after declining to extend its decision in Brooks and require automatic payment of a medical provider’s treatment expenses when an employer fails to give the medical provider notice of its right to intervene in a workers’ compensation proceeding to determine responsibility for those expenses, holding that the Hospital was not entitled to automatic payment of its medical bills for Employee’s treatment. Remanded. View "Gamble v. Twin Cities Concrete Prods." on Justia Law

In 1984 and 1985, James Stevens injured both shoulders while working for S.T. Services and CNA Insurance Companies (collectively, S.T. Services). In 1994, Stevens and S.T. Services entered into a stipulation for settlement under which the parties agreed that Stevens was permanently totally disabled and would receive ongoing permanent total disability benefits. A compensation judge entered an award on the stipulation, and Stevens received benefits until 2011. Stevens began working as a plumbing specialist in 2008 and disclosed his job to S.T. Stevens but continued to receive workers’ compensation benefits. In 2011, S.T. Services filed a petition with the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) to discontinue paying benefits on the grounds that Stevens was no longer permanently totally disabled. A compensation judge granted S.T. Services’ petition to discontinue, and the WCCA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that S.T. Services was not allowed by statute to file a petition to discontinue benefits under the circumstances of this case. View "Stevens v. S.T. Servs." on Justia Law

Employee filed an amended complaint seeking indemnity benefits and medical benefits from compensable injuries to his spine. Employee, however, decided not to pursue his indemnity claims at the compensation hearing. The compensation judge found that Respondent had sustained a Gillette injury to his spine and awarded him medical benefits. Employee subsequently sought reimbursement from Employer for attorney fees under Minn. Stat. 176.081. The compensation judge concluded that Employee was entitled to attorney fees under the statute. Employer appealed, arguing that to be eligible for attorney fees, section 176.081 requires an employee to address all related issues at the same time, and so when Employee pursued only a claim for medical benefits, he forfeited his statutory right to all attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the compensation judge in this case followed the appropriate legal framework in determining the attorney fee award and did not abuse his discretion in the amount awarded. View "Braatz v. Parsons Elec. Co." on Justia Law

The Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund (“the Funds”) filed a declaratory judgment action against Granite Re, Inc. seeking clarification of their right to payment on a surety bond. The district court granted summary judgment to Granite Re, concluding, among other things, that the Funds’ lawsuit was time-barred because the Funds failed to commence litigation within the one-year contractual limitations period set out in the bond. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that fraudulent concealment by the bond principal tolled the limitations period set out in the bond. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) fraudulent concealment can be applied to a surety that was not involved in the fraudulent concealment by the principal; and (2) therefore, the one-year contractual limitations period set out in the bond may be tolled against Granite Re. View "Minn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants, approximately 750 employees, brought a class action against their employers (Employers), alleging five causes of action, including unlawful deductions made in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.79. The jury found Employers did not violate section 181.79. After the verdict, Appellants unsuccessfully requested judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on their section 181.79 claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellants were entitled to JMOL on their claim under section 181.79, as there was no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find that Employers did not make unlawful deductions from Appellants' wages in violation of section 181.79. Remanded with instructions to enter JMOL in favor of Appellants on liability for their section 181.79 claim.View "Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC" on Justia Law

After Scott Schuette, who was working as a police officer at the time, responded to an accident at the local high school he began experiencing mental health problems. Schuette was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Schuette filed a claim petition seeking workers’ compensation benefits for PTSD. A compensation judge denied Schuette’s claim, finding that Schuette’s PTSD lacked a physical component and was thus not a compensable injury under Minnesota law. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed, determining (1) to be compensable under Lockwood v. Independent School District No. 877, an injury must include a physical component; and (2) the compensation judge’s findings that Schuette’s PTSD did not result in a physical brain injury had substantial evidentiary support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the compensation judge’s findings were not manifestly contrary to the evidence; and (2) applying the doctrine of stare decisis, Schuette’s request to overrule Lockwood was declined. View "Schuette v. City of Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Appellant applied for unemployment benefits after she learned her temporary daytime position would be unavailable after the holiday season. Employer subsequently terminated Appellant from her position. Appellant filed an action against Employer for wrongful discharge, alleging that Employer violated public policy but terminating her employment in retaliation for her application for unemployment benefits. The district court granted summary judgment for Employer and awarded Employer costs and disbursements. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that although “an employer may be liable for wrongful discharge if it terminates an employment relationship because of the employee’s refusal to violate the law,” Appellant’s claim did not come within the exception to the employment-at-will rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the public policy exception to the employment-at-will rule does not apply to a termination resulting from an employee’s application for unemployment benefits; and (2) the district court does not have discretion to consider a non-prevailing party’s status as an indigent litigant when it awards costs and disbursements to a prevailing party in a civil action. View "Dukowitz v. Hannon Sec. Servs." on Justia Law