• Judicial •

Workers’ Compensation
Court of Appeals
January through March 2007
Case summaries published are
those prepared by the WCCA

Kerr v. Target Corporation, 1/2/07

Causation
Evidence – Expert Medical Opinion

Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s
conclusion that the employee’s hand and wrist symptoms were not caused, aggravated or accelerated
by the employee’s work activities.

Affirmed.

Neri v. U.S. Steel Corporation, 1/3/07

Practice and Procedure – Statute of Limitations

Where the employer had represented expressly, in its report to the employee on his employer-
conducted hearing test, that the employee’s hearing loss was “not related to job noise exposure,” and
where the judge expressly credited the employee’s testimony that he relied to his detriment on this
representation in not immediately filing a claim, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the statute
of limitations was tolled regarding the employee’s hearing injury was not clearly erroneous and
unsupported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding the employer’s recommendation at the time of
the hearing report that the employee seek medical attention and notwithstanding the fact that the
employee had long-term service on his union’s safety committee and was well familiar with the use
of hearing protection equipment.

Affirmed.

Yates v. Muller Logging, Inc., 1/3/07

Gillette Injury
Gillette Injury – Ultimate Breakdown

Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s conclusion that
the employee sustained a Gillette injury to his cervical spine as a result of his work activities with
 Summaries of Decisions

the employer; the fact that the employee was arguably not “disabled” due to his condition until after
economic layoff does not relieve the employer and insurer of liability.

Permanent Partial Disability

Where the employee received little treatment for his work injury due to lack of insurance, where the
only doctor to rate permanent partial disability did not note objective clinical findings as required by
the permanency rule at issue, and where the issue of maximum medical improvement was not
litigated or determined, the compensation judge’s award for permanent partial disability was
premature.

Practice and Procedure – Admission of Evidence

The compensation judge did not err by receiving into evidence a letter, written by the employee’s
attorney to the employee’s independent medical examiner, about the nature of the employee’s work
activities and treatment.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part.

Haeg v. Seko Worldwide d/b/a Vast Logistics, 1/4/07*

Contribution and Reimbursement

Settlements
Minnesota Statutes § 176.221, subd. 9

Minnesota Statutes § 176.221, subd. 9, regarding payment of full wages to an injured employee, is
silent on the question of whether an employer who pays full wages is entitled to reimbursement. In
this case, where the stipulation for settlement preserved the non-participating employer’s claim for
reimbursement and provided an opportunity to be heard on the claim, and where there was no
evidence the employer paid wages pursuant to a contract or other agreement between the employer
and the employee providing for reimbursement of such wages in the event of an award of temporary
disability benefits, there is no basis for an award of reimbursment, and the denial of the employer’s
claim is affirmed.

Vacation of Award

Where the employer failed to prove entitlement to reimbursement of wages paid to the employee,
there is no error of law and no basis for vacation of the award on stipulation on this ground. Nor does
it appear the employer’s remedies for recovery of wage payments outside the workers’ compensation
system were prejudiced by the stipulation for settlement and we decline to vacate the award on this
basis.

Attorney Fees
Jurisdiction – Subject Matter

Whether there existed a conflict of interest between the employer and insurer, and whether the
insurer was obligated to provide separate counsel to its insured, are not issues arising under the
D-2 • COMPACT • May 2007 *This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
 Summaries of Decisions

workers’ compensation laws of this state, and this court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the insured
employer’s claim for payment of attorney fees from the insurer.

Affirmed.
Petition to vacate award denied.

Madden v. Prairie Community Services, 1/5/07

Causation
Maximum Medical Improvement

Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s conclusion that
the employee continued to suffer from the effects of her work injury, that she has restrictions as a
result of that injury, and that she has not yet reached maximum medical improvement.

Termination of Employment – Misconduct

Minnesota Statutes § 176.101, subd. 1(e)(1)

Given the employee’s explanations for her actions, it was reasonable for the compensation judge to
conclude that the employee was not terminated for misconduct for the purposes of Minnesota
Statutes § 176.101, subd. 1(e)(1).

Temporary Total Disability – Job Search

Temporary Total Disability

Where the employee’s treating doctor had indicated that the employee was capable of work within
restrictions, and where there was no medical or vocational evidence establishing that the employee
was unable to work or look for work, substantial evidence did not support the compensation judge’s
award of temporary total disability benefits.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Rine v. City of Minnetonka, 1/9/07

Causation
Evidence – Expert Medical Opinion
Evidence – Credibility

The compensation judge did not err in relying on the adequately founded opinions of the employee’s
treating cardiologist, or in accepting the employee’s testimony regarding the stress involved in her
patrol officer duties. Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the
employee sustained a permanent, work-related injury on May 24, 2001, in the nature of an atrial
fibrillation condition.

Affirmed.

D-3 • COMPACT • May 2007

 Summaries of Decisions

Hawley v. Kwik Trip, Inc., 1/10/07

Causation – Permanent Injury

Substantial evidence, including the employee’s testimony and the opinions of the employee’s
consulting physicians, supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s October
2003 injury was work-related and permanent.

Causation
Minnesota Rules Part 5223.0410, subp. 7

The evidence does not support a finding of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) under Minnesota
Rules Part 5223.0410, subp. 7, and the compensation judge’s finding to that effect is vacated.
However, there is ample evidentiary support for the finding that the employee sustained a work-
related injury to her left arm that caused impairment of function and required permanent work
restrictions.

Evidence – Admission

There was no abuse of discretion where the employer and insurer failed to demonstrate prejudice as
a result of the compensation judge’s admission of the employee’s job logs and the Jan. 20, 2006,
letter from the employee’s physician.

Job Search

The evidence sufficiently supports the compensation judge’s findings that the employee conducted a
diligent job search and was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from November through
Jan. 14, 2005; from Feb. 1 through April 29, 2005; and from July 21 to Aug. 20, 2005. The employee
failed to conduct any job search from April 30 to May 4, and from May 26 to June 26, 2005, and the
award of temporary total disability for this period of time is reversed.

Permanent Partial Disability – Weber Rating

Where the employee did not qualify for a diagnosis of RSD under the permanency rules, but did
have objective findings of functional impairment, the compensation judge did not err in accepting
the employee’s physician’s rating of a 7 percent permanency under Weber, extrapolating from
Minnesota Rules Part 5223.0410, subp. 7.A.

Temporary Partial Disability

The compensation judge did not err in accepting the driving restrictions imposed by her treating
physician, and accepting the physician’s conclusion that the employee’s post-injury job at K-Mart
was appropriate despite the fact the employee may occasionally exceed her restrictions. Nor is the
compensation judge’s award of temporary partial disability benefits based on her earnings at K-Mart
clearly erroneous.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part.

D-4 • COMPACT • May 2007
 Summaries of Decisions

Volness v. Cemstone, 1/10/07

Causation – Medical Treatment

The compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s second surgery was unrelated to the 2004
work injury was supported by her choice of well-founded medical opinion, as well as by her
reasonable interpretation of the opinions of the treating physician and by the employee’s testimony
and medical records.

Practice and Procedure – Adequacy of Findings

Minnesota Statutes § 176.371

The compensation judge’s findings and orders adequately disclose the factual and legal basis for his
decision and are sufficient under Minnesota Statutes § 176.371. The absence of a detailed explanation
of the rejection of certain evidence is not, accordingly, here a basis for remand or reversal.

Affirmed.

Nerud v. Duininck Brothers, Inc., 1/11/07

Permanent Partial Disability – Brain Dysfunction

Permanent Partial Disability – Eye
Minnesota Rules Part 5223.0360
Minnesota Rules Part 5223.0330

Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s findings
regarding permanent partial disability ratings for brain dysfunction, emotional disturbance and vision
impairment.

Permanent Partial Disability – Bladder

Permanent Partial Disability – Reproductive Tract
Minnesota Rules Part 5223.0600

Where it is unclear from the judge’s findings and order, and from his analysis of the employee’s
claims for permanent partial disability benefits related to his brain injury, whether he considered the
issue of whether the employee’s brain injury, and his findings on MRI scans of his brain, could be
deemed to be a objectively demonstrated neurological lesion necessary for an award of permanent
partial disability benefits for reproductive and urinary tract dysfunction, and whether the
compensation judge considered whether the employee has organic dysfunction and an anatomic loss
or alteration under the permanent partial disability rules, we vacate the denial of permanent partial
disability benefits related to reproductive and urinary tract dysfunction and remand the matter to the
compensation judge for reconsideration.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part.

D-5 • COMPACT • May 2007

 Summaries of Decisions

Gjerde v. The Pillsbury Company/General Mills, Inc., 1/18/07*

Causation – Permanent Aggravation

Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s finding that the
employee’s work injury permanently aggravated the employee’s pre-existing osteoarthritis.

Affirmed.

Timmer v. Independent School District #482, 1/23/07*

Permanent Total Disability

Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee is permanently
and totally disabled as the result of her work injury.

Medical Treatment and Expenses – Nursing Services

Where the services provided were limited to cleaning services not related to personal care of the
employee, the services are not covered by workers’ compensation.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Stordahl v. Advanced Communications, Inc., 1/26/07

Temporary Partial Disability

Where the record did not establish that the employee had any wage loss for purposes of temporary
partial disability, the compensation judge did not err in denying that claim.

Medical Treatment and Expense – Surgery

Where, on the date of hearing, the employee was only 33 years old, was less than six months post-
injury, had not followed up on recommendations for weight loss and active rehabilitation, and had
only minimal disc disruption on discogram, and where the only physician recommending surgery did
not explain why he was no longer recommending conservative care, the compensation judge did not
err in denying the employee’s request for approval of fusion surgery.

Affirmed.

McIntyre v. Wilson Lines of Minnesota, 1/31/07

Causation

Substantial evidence, including the employee’s testimony and the medical evidence, supports the
compensation judge’s finding that the employee has bilateral hand and arm symptoms secondary to
his work-related injury to the cervical spine on July 30, 2001.
D-6 • COMPACT • May 2007 *This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
 Summaries of Decisions

Evidence – Res Judicata

The finding, in a prior findings and order, that the employee was not permanently and totally
disabled as of Aug. 3, 2004, does not preclude a finding of permanent total disability from and after
Aug. 4, 2004. The employee need not, necessarily, provide evidence of a material change in
condition, but is required only to provide proof of the existence of the claimed disability during the
time for which benefits are claimed.

Permanent Total Disability

Substantial evidence, including both expert medical and vocational opinion, supports the
compensation judge’s determination that a job search would have been fruitless, and that the
employee was permanently and totally disabled, effective Aug. 4, 2004.

Affirmed.

Duggan v. United Properties, 2/1/07

Medical Treatment and Expense – Treatment Parameters

Minnesota Rules Part 5221.6100, subp. 2.G.(1)

Where the chart notes of the employee’s treating and consulting physicians, along with the
employee’s testimony, provided sufficient evidence that the employee’s condition had not improved
with initial nonsurgical management, and where the consulting physician recommended that the
employee undergo a discogram, following an MRI scan, so that he could review the diagnostic
testing to determine the level and extent of pathology and the appropriate treatment options, the
compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee had satisfied the criteria in Minnesota Rules Part
5221.6100, subp. 2.G.(1), for authorizing discography was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by
substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

Coffing v. Independent School District #194, 2/5/07

Attorney Fees – Roraff

Attorney Fees – Heaton

Where it had been the employer and insurer, not the employee’s attorney, who had prevailed in
continuing the employee’s rehabilitation benefits, where, in her findings and order on attorney fees,
the compensation judge adopted by reference “as though set forth verbatim” her own earlier findings
and order on issues of the employee’s entitlement to benefits, and where, in that earlier findings and
order, she referenced the records and opinions of the employee’s treating doctor no fewer than 16
times, the compensation judge’s determination that a Roraff fee of $500, instead of $10,106.25, was
reasonable for the attorney’s work on medical and related matters in the case was not clearly
erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence for any failure to contemplate the treating
doctor’s testimony or for any inattention to the complexities of the case.

D-7 • COMPACT • May 2007

 Summaries of Decisions

Attorney Fees – Irwin

Where, in one of her findings and order, the judge clearly addressed deliberately at least five of the
seven factors for determining a reasonable attorney fee under Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, the
compensation judge’s determination that a Roraff fee of $500, instead of $10,106.25, was reasonable
for the attorney’s work on medical and related matters in the case was not clearly erroneous and
unsupported by substantial evidence for any failure to analyze the facts of the case pursuant to the
“Irwin factors,” notwithstanding the fact that the judge did not mention the Irwin case by name
anywhere in her decision.

Affirmed.

Higbee v. Mid Central Steel Erectors, 2/6/07

Permanent Total Disability

Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision that the
employee was permanently and totally disabled as a substantial result of his work-related low back
injury and resulting failed fusion surgery.

Apportionment – Equitable

Equitable apportionment is not available where a portion of the employee’s disability is attributable
to an earlier work injury that occurred when the employee was self-employed and uninsured against
workers’ compensation liability.

Affirmed.

Hovland v. Streater, Inc., 2/6/07

Causation

Substantial evidence in the form of a well-founded medical opinion supports the compensation
judge’s decision that the employee’s work injury is a substantial contributing factor in his ongoing
disability.

Affirmed.

Ripplinger v. Sears Imported Auto, Inc., 2/7/07

Causation

Substantial evidence, including witness testimony, medical records and expert medical opinion,
supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee did not sustain a left shoulder injury as
a result of his work with the employer.

Affirmed as modified.
D-8 • COMPACT • May 2007
 Summaries of Decisions

Christensen v. Nokken Farms, Inc., 2/8/07

Wages – Irregular
Wages – Multiple Employments
Wages – Seasonal Work
Wages – Calculation

Where the employee’s wages were irregular and seasonal, the compensation judge did not err in
calculating the employee’s weekly wage for the employer by dividing the total wages earned by the
employee by the total number of days worked (15), and multiplying this daily wage by five. On the
facts of this case, where the number of days worked by the employee for the second employer was
unknown, the compensation judge appropriately calculated the employee’s weekly wage by dividing,
by 26, the employee’s total earnings from the second employer during the 26 weeks prior to the
injury.

Penalties

Where the employer and insurer presented a colorable legal defense, the employee is not entitled to
an award of penalties.

Affirmed.

Bartz v. Meadow Lane Healthcare, 2/26/07*

Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition

Where the employee failed to provide evidence that there was an unanticipated substantial change in
condition since the time of settlement, the petition to vacate is denied.

Petition to vacate denied.

Wiirre v. Health Personnel Options, 2/26/07

Jurisdiction – Subject Matter

The compensation judge lacked jurisdiction to prospectively order the employer and insurer to
continue to pay or provide for prescribed medications on behalf of the employee beyond the date of
the hearing, and the order must be vacated.

Vacated in part.

Custer v. Independent School District #2154, 2/28/07

Rehabilitation – Retraining

Where the employee returned to work with the employer, but was precluded from performing her
previous part-time work with the second employer for whom she had worked at the time of her
D-9 • COMPACT • May 2007 *This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
 Summaries of Decisions

injury due to her physical work restrictions, and where the record contains a labor market survey,
vocational reports and testimony that reflect that the proposed retraining could provide the employee
with an economic status as close as possible to her pre-injury status, substantial evidence supports
the compensation judge’s findings that the Poole factors had been met and the compensation judge’s
related award of a retraining program.

Affirmed.

Noeker v. Nordling Construction, et al, 2/28/07

Causation – Medical Treatment

Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s findings that the employee’s 1974 work
injury was causally related to the employee’s current need for physical therapy and a home cervical
traction unit, and that the employee’s 2001 work injuries were not causally related to his need for
that medical treatment.

Affirmed.

Richards v. ABF Freight System, 2/28/07

Causation – Gillette Injury

Evidence – Burden of Proof
Practice and Procedure – Remand

Where the employee’s doctor did not reference the employee’s neck complaints in all of his
treatment records in part because he kept separate records on the employee’s upper extremity injury
and his low back injury, where the judge had noted that lack of referencing as a basis for his denial
of neck-related as opposed to shoulder-related benefits, and where the judge appeared to have
applied an outdated legal standard for proving a Gillette-type injury, the compensation judge’s denial
of benefits for either a specific or a Gillette-type work injury to the neck was reversed and remanded
for reconsideration of the evidence in light of the current legal standard.

Causation
Evidence – Credibility

Where it was supported by expert medical opinion and was not otherwise unreasonable, the
compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s shoulder disability was both work-related and
permanent in nature was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Temporary Total Disability

Job Search

Where the only hard evidence of any search for work over the three-year span of the employee’s wage
replacement claim was a log of his having made five “cold calls” a day for a period of two months, the
compensation judge’s award of temporary total disability benefits was, except for a period when the
employee was medically restricted from working, unsupported by substantial evidence,
notwithstanding the fact that the employee was without a QRC’s assistance in his job search.
D-10 • COMPACT • May 2007
 Summaries of Decisions

Temporary Partial Disability

Earning Capacity

Where there was expert medical opinion that the employee was permanently restricted from
returning to his pre-injury work as a truck driver, and where the self-insured employer did not rebut
the presumption that the employee’s post-injury wages as a security guard constituted a reasonable
representation of his post-injury earning capacity, the compensation judge’s award of temporary
partial disability benefits was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Strand v. United States Steel Corporation, 2/28/07

Causation

Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision that the
employee sustained permanent injuries to her neck and low back as a result of her work-related
accident.

Temporary Partial Disability

Earning Capacity

Where the employee was working full time, with substantial overtime, on the date of injury, and she
was not restricted as to hours, worked only part time, and did not look for other work after the injury,
the compensation judge erred in applying the presumption that actual earnings are representative of
the employee’s earning capacity.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Vellieux v. Catholic Charities, 3/8/07

Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition

Under the circumstances of this case, especially given the substantial increase in permanent partial
disability and change in the employee’s ability to work, good cause existed to vacate the award on
stipulation.

Petition to vacate award granted.

Hassan v. Specialty Staff, Inc., 3/13/07

Temporary Benefits

Substantial evidence, including medical expert opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding
that the employee did not need work restrictions from and after Nov. 12, 2005, and the judge’s denial
of wage loss benefits after Nov. 11, 2005.

D-11 • COMPACT • May 2007

 Summaries of Decisions

Practice and Procedure – Matters at Issue

The employee’s claim of entitlement to additional permanent partial disability benefits was not at
issue before the compensation judge, and the judge properly concluded the dispute was a matter for
future determination if necessary.

Affirmed.

Narez v. LSI Corporation of America, Inc., 3/13/07

Maximum Medical Improvement

Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee reached
maximum medical improvement (MMI) from the effects of her work injury.

Affirmed.

Boyington v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc., 3/15/07

Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition

Under the circumstances of this case, especially given the substantial increase in permanent partial
disability and change in the employee’s ability to work, good cause existed to vacate the award on
stipulation.

Petition to vacate award granted.

Moore v. Q Carriers, Inc., 3/16/07

Medical Treatment and Expense – Reasonable and Necessary

Causation – Medical Treatment

Where there was properly founded expert medical opinion that the employee’s headache complaints
were of headache that was migraine in nature and causally related to his work injury, the
compensation judge’s award of payment for numerous emergency room treatments for migraine
headache complaints was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Medical Treatment and Expense – Reasonable and Necessary

Causation – Medical Treatment

Where the hospitalization at issue followed within hours of the employee’s intravenous medication
for migraine headache pain, where the employee’s migraine headache pain was found to be causally
related to the employee’s work injury, and where there was expert medical opinion that one of the
intravenous medications infused into the employee just prior to his hospitalization was capable of
causing a dangerous spike in blood sugars, the compensation judge’s award of payment for the
employee’s emergency hospitalization for heart-related symptoms and dangerously high blood
sugars was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence.
D-12 • COMPACT • May 2007
 Summaries of Decisions

Medical Treatment and Expense – Diagnostic Testing

Where there were objective clinical findings by a medical expert that the employee was subject to
carpal tunnel syndrome bilaterally, and where a repeat EMG of the employee’s upper extremities had
been recommended by that expert to confirm that diagnosis, the compensation judge’s award of a
repeat EMG of the employee’s upper extremities was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by
substantial evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the employee’s earlier post-work-injury EMG had
proved negative.

Affirmed.

Christenson v. Independent School District #281 – Robbinsdale, 3/21/07

Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition

Where the employee failed to provide evidence of an unanticipated substantial change in medical
condition since the time of the award, the petition to vacate must be denied.

Petition to vacate award denied.

Liniewicz v. Muller Family Theatre, 3/21/07

Permanent Total Disability – Retirement

Minnesota Statutes § 176.101, subd. 4

The employee’s continued participation in job search past age 67 and job search under the direction
of the QRC and placement vendor is evidence which supports the finding that the retirement
presumption in Minnesota Statutes § 176.101, subd. 4, was rebutted.

Affirmed.

Zupon v. Forklifts, Inc., et al, 3/22/07

Permanent Total Disability – Effective Date

Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee was
temporarily totally disabled from July 27 to Oct. 27, 2004, and that the employee did not become
permanently and totally disabled until Nov. 12, 2004.

Vacation of Award – Mutual Mistake

Where there was no evidence the employee made a mistake regarding the union contract submitted
into evidence, and the employee disputed the employer’s entitlement to reimbursement of on-the-job
injury payments made to the employee, the employer failed to establish a mutual mistake of fact
sufficient to vacate the award.

D-13 • COMPACT • May 2007

 Summaries of Decisions

Attorney Fees – Excess Fees

The compensation judge did not err in awarding an additional $13,000 in attorney fees, where the
employee’s attorney properly filed a request for excess fees, and the compensation judge’s findings
pursuant to the factors set forth in Irwin v. Surdyk’s Liquor, 599 N.W.2d 132, 59 W.C.D. 319 (Minn.
1999) are supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.
Petition to vacate award denied.

Hollen v. Community Maintenance, Inc., 3/23/07

Causation

Given the record as a whole, and especially considering that the employee’s treating physicians were
apparently unaware of the employee’s extensive history of pre-injury symptoms and treatment,
substantial evidence supported the compensation judge’s denial of benefits related to the employee’s
bilateral shoulder condition.

Causation – Psychological Injury

Where the compensation judge made arguably inconsistent findings, and the basis for her decision
was not clear, the employee’s claim for a consequential psychological injury was remanded for
further findings and explanation.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Kroells v. Cemstone, Inc., 3/23/07

Causation – Medical Treatment

Medical Treatment and Expense – Surgery
Evidence – Expert Medical Opinion

Where letters written by the treating doctor subsequent to his office notes on the date of injury did
not dispel the discrepancy between those office notes and the employee’s testimony as to his
symptoms on the date of injury, and where the medical records did not support the employee’s
testimony that his symptoms were entirely different after the work injury and before his next visit to
the treating doctor, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s work injury was not a
substantial contributing factor in his need for recommended surgery was not clearly erroneous and
unsupported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

D-14 • COMPACT • May 2007

 Summaries of Decisions
• Judicial •

Minnesota
Supreme Court
January through March 2007
Case summaries published are
those prepared by the WCCA

• Kris Hahn v. Graco, Inc., Self-Insured/Administered by ASU Risk Management Services,

A06-1737, Dec. 28, 2006

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Aug. 17, 2006, affirmed without
opinion.

• Janice M. Falls v. Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., and Sedgwick Claims Management Services,
Inc., A06-994, January 18, 2007

S Y L LAB U S

The temporary total disability compensation cessation condition in Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd.
1(i) (2004), under which temporary total disability compensation ceases if an employee refuses an
offer of suitable work, does not apply to work offers made before the commencement of
temporary total disability compensation.

Employee’s engagement in activities beyond the restrictions set by a physician did not constitute a
constructive refusal of suitable employment.

Affirmed.

• Betty A. Zadrozny v. Northwest Airlines and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, A06-2037,
Jan. 24, 2007

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Aug. 17, 2006, affirmed without
opinion.

• Howard P. Williams v. Grand Rapids Baptist Church, Uninsured, and Calvary Pines Baptist
Church, Uninsured, and SMDC Health System, Minnesota Department of Labor and
Industry/Vocational Rehabilitation unit, Arrowhead Consultation Services, Intervenors,
and Special Compensation Fund, A06-1875, Jan. 24, 2007

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Sept. 12, 2006, affirmed without
opinion.

D-15 • COMPACT • May 2007

 Summaries of Decisions

• Charles Ball by Diana Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.,/Craig Rebers, and Uninsured, and Special
Compensation Fund, A06-1980, Jan. 24, 2007

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Sept. 18, 2006, affirmed without
opinion.

• David T. Adams v. DSR Sales, Inc., and Milwaukee Insurance Group, A06-1402, Feb. 15, 2007

S Y L LA B U S

The proceeds of the settlement of the third-party action are subject to allocation in accordance with
Minn. Stat. § 176.061, subd. 6 (2006).

Reversed and remanded.

• Inocencio Zamorano Hernandez v. Fantom Wire, Inc., and State Fund Mutual Insurance
Company, and Specialty Staff, Inc., Self-Insured, claims administered by Meadowbrook
Insurance Group, A06-2260, March 1, 2007

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Oct. 31, 2006, affirmed without opinion.

• Connie C. Reider v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11, Self-Insured, and Noran
Neurological Clinic, and Blaine Chiropractic Center, Intervenors, A06-1344, March 8, 2007

S Y L LA B U S

Minnesota Statutes § 176.155, subd. 2 (2006), providing for the designation of a neutral physician to
make an examination of the injured worker, is mandatory when an interested party makes a timely
request for such designation.

Reversed and remanded.

• Stanley L. Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc., and Zurich Insurance Company/Creative Risk
Solutions, A06-1721, and Met Con Companies and State Fund Mutual Insurance Company, A06-
1793, March 29, 2007

S Y L LA B U S

1. An employer/insurer’s voluntary payment of benefits within the limitations period constitutes a

“proceeding” that satisfies the workers’ compensation statute of limitations and the employer/
insurer’s subsequent denial of liability does not restart the running of the limitations period.

2. A non-settling employer/insurer is liable for contribution to a settling employer/insurer, even

though the settlement includes future benefits, if a temporary order has been issued under Minn.
Stat. § 176.191, subd. 1 (2006) requiring the settling employer/insurer to pay benefits and a
compensation judge properly finds that the non-settling employer was also liable to the employee
and that the settlement of the employee’s claim was reasonable.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

D-16 • COMPACT • May 2007