Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this defamation case, holding that before Plaintiff may recover presumed damages, he must show that Defendant's speech was not only false but was made with actual malice.Plaintiff, a private figure, sued Defendant after a post on Defendant's social media page accused Defendant and others of sexual assault. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant on the grounds that the speech involved a matter of public concern and was not made with actual malice. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the truth or falsity of Defendant's statement presented a genuine issue of material fact. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the dominant theme of Defendant's post involved sexual assault in the context of the #MeToo movement, and therefore, her statement was entitled to heightened protection under the First Amendment; and (2) remand was required for a trial on the veracity of Defendant's speech and actual malice. View "Johnson v. Freborg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the district court to grant a harassment restraining order (HRO) against Appellant, holding that Appellant's challenge to the HRO did not present a justiciable controversy because it was moot.The district court concluded that Appellant had engaged in repeated incidents of harassing conduct against Respondent and issued a six-month HRO. While Appellant's appeal was pending, the HRO expired. The court of appeals affirmed, and Appellant filed a petition for further review. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, holding that Appellant's challenge to the HRO did not present a justiciable controversy because it was moot. View "Winkowski v. Winkowski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the workers' compensation court of appeals (WCCA) affirming the findings and conclusions of the compensation judge determining that Employee was entitled to workers' compensation benefits because of her Gillette injury, holding that the WCCA's affirmance of the compensation judge's findings was not manifestly contrary to the evidence.Employee filed a claim petition alleging that she sustained a Gillette injury and sought workers' compensation benefits. The compensation judge ordered Employer to pay Employee benefits. The WCCA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCCA's findings, including the date Employee's injury occurred, when Employee was required to notify Employer of her injury, and the calculation of Employe's post-injury earning capacity, were not manifestly contrary to the evidence. View "Schmidt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

In this appeal arising out of the application of a provision of the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act known as the "assault exception" the Supreme Court held that the assault exception applied and that Relator Deangelo Profit was not entitled to recover workers' compensation benefits under the circumstances of this case.Profit suffered serious injuries when he was attacked at his job site by a mentally ill acquaintance while he was performing his work injuries. Profit sought workers' compensation benefits under Minn. Stat. 176.021, subd. 1, which are to awarded in cases "of personal injury or death of an employee arising out of and in the course of employment." The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals concluded that Profit was not entitled to recover benefits under the assault exception. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the assault exception did not apply where the assailant "intended to injure [Profit] because of personal reasons" and his acts were "not directed against the employee as an employee, or because of the employment." View "Profit v. HRT Holdings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Claimant was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits after the date on which he no longer had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by a licensed professional using the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).From 2007 to 2020 Claimant was employed as a Mower County Deputy Sheriff. From September 25, 2019 to March 30, 2021, Claimant had a diagnosis of PTSD by a licensed professional, making him eligible for workers' compensation benefits. In this action, Claimant argued that he was entitled to benefits after March 30, 2021, the date that he no longer had a diagnosis of PTSD, because he remained disabled from a mental illness. The compensation court awarded benefits from April 1, 2020 into the present. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that Claimant was not entitled to benefits after March 30, 2021. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Claimant was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits after March 30, 2021. View "Chrz v. Mower County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) that Respondent was entitled to workers' compensation benefits, holding that Respondent was not entitled to relief on his claims on appeal.A licensed psychologist diagnosed Respondent, a former deputy sheriff for Carlton County, with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A compensation judge ruled that Respondent was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits because a subsequent psychological evaluation requested by the County resulted in a diagnosis of major depressive disorder but not PTSD. The WCCA reversed, holding (1) under Minn. Stat. 176.011, subd. 15(e), deputy sheriffs are entitled to a presumption that PTSD is an occupational disease if they present a diagnosis of PTSD, regardless of whether their employer offers a competing diagnosis; and (2) Respondent was entitled to the benefit of the presumption that he had a compensable occupational disease, and the County failed to rebut the presumption. View "Juntunen v. Carlton County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversing the rulings of the compensation judge finding that C. Jeremy Lagasse was entitled to contingent fees under Minn. Stat. 176.081, subd. 1(c) and that Larry Horton was entitled to partial reimbursement of fees under Minn. Stat. 176.081, subd. 7, holding that the WCCA incorrectly applied subdivision 1(c) in its standard of review.Horton, who was injured during his employment with Aspen Waste Systems and sought permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits through Aspen's insurer (Insurer), retained Lagasse to represent him in the matter. The compensation judge determined that Lagasse was entitled to contingent fees and that Horton was entitled to partial reimbursement of fees. The WCCA reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the WCCA incorrectly applied subdivision 1(c); and (2) the compensation judge and the WCCA incorrectly applied subdivision 7. View "Lagasse v. Horton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Marvel, LLC in this negligence action, holding that an exculpatory clause purporting to release Marvel from "any and all claims" related to use of its inflatable amusement play area did not release Marvel from liability for its own negligence.Before seven-year-old Carter Justice attended a birthday party at an inflatable amusement play area owned by Marvel his mother signed a waiver of liability naming Justice. While there, Justice fell and hit his head on concrete floor, leading to several injuries. Justice sued Marvel when he turned eighteen. The district court granted summary judgment for Marvel, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the waiver, strictly construed, did not release Marvel from liability for its own negligence. View "Justice v. Marvel, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants - mental healthcare providers - and dismissing Plaintiff's wrongful death action, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed.For three months, Brian Short received outpatient treatment for anxiety and depression. Thereafter, he shot and killed his wife, his three children, and himself. Plaintiff brought this wrongful death action. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that they did not have a duty to protect or control Brian or his wife and children absent a custodial relationship or foreseeability of harm. The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) Defendants owed a duty of care to Brian, and (2) genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Defendants' conduct created a foreseeable risk to Brian's wife and children. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed as to Brian, holding that a mental healthcare provider owes a duty of reasonable care to its patient that is not negated by a lack of total control over the patient; and (2) reversed as to Brian's wife and children, holding that harm to the family members was outside the scope of the duty of care and unforeseeable as a matter of law. View "Smits v. Park Nicollet Health Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals upholding the dismissal of Appellants' claims for defense and indemnification of a federal lawsuit from the State under the State Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. 3.736, subd. 9, holding that Appellants were not eligible for defense and indemnification under the Act.After the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe sued Appellants - Mille Lacs County Attorney Joseph Walsh and Mille Lacs County Sheriff Don Lorge - in federal court Appellants sought indemnification and defense from the State. At issue was whether Appellants were "employees of the state" under the Act when the undertook the conduct that was the subject of the federal lawsuit. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) for purposes of defense and indemnification under the Act, county sheriffs generally do not act on behalf to the State when they enforce state criminal laws, and county attorneys generally do not act on behalf of the State when they prosecute state; and (2) Appellants were not acting on behalf of the State in an official capacity for purposes of defense and indemnification under the Act. View "Walsh v. State" on Justia Law