• Judicial •

Court of Appeals
January through March 2004
Case summaries published are those prepared by the WCCA

Workers’ Compensation

Smith v. Douglas County PHN Service, 1/5/04 DOI: 10/14/97 Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision as to the nature of the employee’s work injury and as to the causal relationship of claimed medical expenses to that injury. Affirmed. Johnson v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 1/16/04 DOI: 7/21/94 Rehabilitation – Retraining Substantial evidence supports the determination of the compensation judge that the employee sustained an impairment of earning capacity by reason of his work injury and was entitled to have his rehabilitation plan amended to allow exploration of retraining. Affirmed. Larson v. University of Minnesota, 1/16/04 DOI: 8/8/01 Practice and Procedure Stipulation for Settlement Minnesota Statutes §176.106 Where the parties disputed whether the compensation judge had subject matter jurisdiction to issue a previous Decision and Order pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §176.106, the validity of the decision was properly the subject of a settlement agreement. As the agreement is not a full, final and complete

Summaries of Decisions settlement of the employee’s medical and rehabilitation benefits, it is conclusively presumed reasonable, fair and in conformity with Chapter 176, and the compensation judge erred in disapproving the parties’ settlement. Remanded. Miller v. Marigold Foods, 1/23/04 DOI: 10/23/00 Causation Substantial evidence, including expert medical testimony, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s Oct. 23, 2000, work injury was not a substantial contributing factor to his ongoing disability and need for treatment after a non-work-related incident March 27, 2001. Practice and Procedure – Independent Medical Examination Where the employer and insurer did not reimburse the employee for his expenses incurred when attending the IME, and where that claim was before the compensation judge at the hearing, the compensation judge’s denial of reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses is reversed as it was clearly erroneous. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Allen v. Northwest Airlines Corporation, 1/26/04 DOI: 2/7/02 Temporary Total Disability Where an employer and insurer originally admitted liability for the employee’s claimed injury and later denied primary liability for the employee’s entire claim, and where the employer and insurer filed a notice of intention to discontinue benefits and discontinued payment of temporary total disability benefits, and where in an unappealed finding the compensation judge found that the employee sustained no work-related injury, in view of the unusual circumstances of this case, no additional benefits are due. Affirmed. Twa by Twa v. Lund Boat Company, 1/26/04 DOI: 3/27/02 Evidence – Expert Medical Opinion The compensation judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the employee’s request to depose one of his treating physicians.

D-2

• COMPACT • May 2004

Summaries of Decisions Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision that the employee’s work injury was merely temporary and did not contribute to the employee’s disability during the period in question. Affirmed. Nitz v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, 1/27/04* DOI: 7/23/01 Causation Where the opinion of the employee’s treating doctor was that the work injury continues to be a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s need for restrictions, substantial evidence supports the decision of the compensation judge. Temporary Partial Disability Substantial evidence supports the decision of the compensation judge in awarding temporary partial disability compensation where post-injury work with the employer was not available and the employee found other employment within her restrictions. Intervenors Minnesota Statutes §176.361, subd. 4 Where the motion to intervene was served and filed before the effective date of the amendment to Minnesota Statutes §176.361, subd. 4, the claim of the intervenors was properly granted despite its failure to attend the hearing. Affirmed. McNeal v. Minnesota Oncology, 1/30/04 DOI: 10/10/02 Maximum Medical Improvement Substantial evidence exists to support the decision of the compensation judge that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement. Affirmed.

D-3

• COMPACT • May 2004

* This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions Plumb v. Dodge of Burnsville, Inc., 1/30/04 DOI: 8/17/02 Attorney Fees – Roraff or Irwin Where wage-loss benefits are being paid which are producing contingency fees, the determination of whether contingency fees are adequate to compensate the employee’s attorney is premature. Affirmed. Amunrud v. Advance United Expressway, 2/2/04* DOI: 3/20/80 Medical Treatment and Expense – Treatment Parameters Minnesota Rules Part 5221.6050 Where the employer and insurer’s notice to the employee’s physical therapist cited specific treatment parameters and suggested that the provider’s treatments were excessive, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employer and insurer’s compliance with the notice provisions of Minnesota Rules Part 5221.6050 was sufficient was neither legally erroneous nor unsupported by substantial evidence. Medical Treatment and Expense – Treatment Parameters Minnesota Rules Part 5221.6200, subp. 3.B.(2) Where there was no clear evidence in the medical or physical therapy records that the therapy was effective, and where the employee himself testified that his relief by the therapy was very minimal and of only very brief duration, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s physical therapy was not sufficiently effective in “maintaining functional status” to entitle the employee to treatment beyond an additional twelve visits under Minnesota Rules Part 5221.6200, subp. 3.B.(2), was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Medical Treatment and Expense – Treatment Parameters Minnesota Rules Part 5221.6050, subp. 8 Where it was not unreasonable in light of all of the evidence of record, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee was not subject to “a documented medical complication” for purposes of satisfying the departure provision of Minnesota Rules Part 5221.6050, subp. 8.A., was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Medical Treatment and Expense – Treatment Parameters Where there was little medical support for the position that the physical therapy at issue was materially effective in improving or maintaining the employee’s functional status, and where that therapy was not effective in keeping the employee at work, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s circumstances did not qualify as a “rare case exception” to the treatment parameters under the Jacka and Asti cases was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Affirmed.
D-4
• COMPACT • May 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions Blair v. Alexandria Electric, 2/2/04 DOI: 7/11/95 Causation Substantial evidence, including the employee’s testimony and his medical records, supported the conclusion that the employee’s claustrophobia and post traumatic stress disorder are causally related to the employee’s work injury. Temporary Total Disability Where the record would not support the conclusion that the employee was totally unable to work at all due to his psychological condition, and where there was no evidence establishing a reasonably diligent search for work, substantial evidence did not support the judge’s award of temporary total disability benefits. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Davidson v. Thermo King, 2/2/04* DOI: 7/27/99 Permanent Total Disability – Retirement Where the employee accepted a special incentive retirement arrangement from the employer prior to a workforce reduction, where the employee sought rehabilitation assistance and searched for work after leaving his employment with the employer in order to supplement his income, and where the employee testified that he doubted whether he could physically perform a position that the employer later contended the employee would have been able to perform within his restrictions, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee did not voluntarily retire from the entire job market and that he was not precluded from claiming disability benefits. Permanent Total Disability – Effective Date Where the employee accepted a special incentive retirement arrangement from the employer prior to a workforce reduction, and where the employee sought rehabilitation assistance and searched for work after leaving his employment with the employer, substantial evidence of record supports the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee remained temporarily totally disabled for approximately 15 months after his employment ended, and became permanently totally disabled thereafter. Affirmed.

D-5

• COMPACT • May 2004

* This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions Reel v. Loftness Specialized Farm Equipment, 2/3/04 DOI: 5/18/01 Gillette Injury – Date of Injury Substantial evidence supported the compensation judge’s decision as to the date of the employee’s Gillette injury, and, while the record might also have supported the choice of some other date, no other injury date was so obviously correct as to justify reversing the judge’s decision. Affirmed. Palmi v. Inter City Oil, 2/9/04 DOI: 2/22/99 Practice and Procedure – Remand Where the findings and order do not contain findings on an issue that was specifically listed at hearing, the matter is remanded to the compensation judge for reconsideration of that issue. Remanded for reconsideration. Christen v. Sherburne County, 2/10/04 DOI: 8/21/00 Causation Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s work injury of Aug. 21, 2000, was temporary, and the judge’s denial of the employee’s claims for wage-loss benefits and medical expenses. Affirmed. Kubiak v. Rangers Security, Inc., 2/11/04 DOI: 11/13/00 Causation Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee sustained a diminution in earning capacity as a result of his work-related injury and was entitled to payment of temporary partial disability benefits. Affirmed.

D-6

• COMPACT • May 2004

Summaries of Decisions Nguyen v. Compass Group USA, 2/12/04 DOI: 5/21/01 Vacation of Award – Fraud Minnesota Statutes §176.461 The findings by the compensation judge support a conclusion that good cause exists to vacate the compensation judge’s Findings and Order under Minnesota Statutes §176.461. Petition to vacate granted. Danielsen v. Clairol, Inc., 2/20/04* DOI: 2/9/83 Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition Where, since the time of the award, the employee’s ability to work had not changed at all, where her diagnosis had changed very little, where any increase in her permanency rating was minimal and without clear documentation or other support, and where any more costly and extensive medical care than may have been anticipated had not been proved causally related to the alleged work injury and had been at any rate left open for payment under a medical request pursuant to the stipulation, the employee did not show good cause for vacating her 1989 award on stipulation on grounds that she had experienced a substantial change in her condition. Vacation of Award – Mistake Where it was clear that supplementary benefits were expressly at issue at the time of settlement, where a portion of the employee’s settlement proceeds was expressly designated as representing supplementary benefits and there was no evidence that this amount was ever intended to represent specific weekly compensation or anything other than a compromised amount, and where all parties were represented by counsel and the employee offered no evidence that any were actually “mistaken” as to what was at stake, the employee did not show good cause to vacate her 1989 award on stipulation on grounds of mistake because the parties may not have detailed in their stipulated agreement every element of the employee’s potential entitlement to supplementary benefits. Petition to vacate denied. Murphy v. Road Rescue, Inc., 2/20/04 DOI: 10/3/88 Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision that the employee’s Oct. 3, 1988, work injury was merely temporary and did not substantially contribute to the employee’s subsequent disability and need for treatment for the period at issue. Affirmed.
D-7
• COMPACT • May 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions Murphey v. Dakota Electric Association, 2/23/04 DOI: 10/25/95 Causation Substantial evidence supports the decision of the compensation judge that the employee’s need for surgery and result in disability was not the result of his work injury. Affirmed. Rath v. Kiffmeyer, Inc., 2/24/04 DOI: 11/9/92 Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition Where the employee submitted evidence of a subsequent psychological condition, previously determined by a compensation judge to be causally related to the employee’s November 1992 low back injury, along with evidence of a substantial change in his ability to work, the employee’s petition to vacate the 1995 Award on Stipulation is granted. Petition to vacate award granted. Tatar, deceased by Tatar v. New Millennium, Inc., 2/26/04 DOI: 3/16/02; DOD: 3/17/02 Dependency Benefits Minnesota Statutes §176.111, subd. 1 Minnesota Statutes §176.111, subd. 2 Minnesota Statutes §176.111, subd. 4 Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that three of the employee’s stepchildren were wholly dependent within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §176.111, subd. 1, and another stepchild was a partial dependent within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §176.111, subds. 2 and 4, and that all were entitled to dependency benefits. Affirmed. Snyder v. Yellow Freight System, 3/1/04* DOI: 8/3/98 Credits and Offsets Minnesota Statutes §176.061, subd. 6 Where the employee recovered payment from a third-party action, in which the self-insured employer has a subrogation interest, and where the employer is due reimbursement of benefits already paid to the employee, the compensation judge did not err in concluding that, once the employer’s credit has been calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §176.061, including a reduction of the credit to account
D-8
• COMPACT • May 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions for the employer’s share of the cost of collection, the employer may take a dollar-for-dollar offset of benefits until it has recovered its full credit for past payments under Minnesota Statutes §176.061. Credits and Offsets Minnesota Statutes §176.061, subd. 6 Where the employee recovered payment from a third-party action, in which the self-insured employer has a subrogation interest, and where the employer is due a future credit for benefits payable in the future, once the employer’s credit has been calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §176.061, the employer shall continue to make payments to the employee, for any benefits that the employer is obligated to make in the future, at the rate of $.335 for each dollar owed, to cover the cost of collection, and then shall reduce its credit by $1, until it has recovered its full future credit. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Corbett v. Ipsco Minnesota, Inc., 3/4/04 DOI: 11/7/01 Attorney Fees – Roraff Given the record before him, the compensation judge did not err in awarding Roraff fees of $7,000, rather than the more than $15,000 claimed. Affirmed. Cannata v. Borchert-Ingersoll, Inc., 3/8/04 DOI: 3/22/83, 10/27/72, 7/27/72 Practice and Procedure – Penalty Assessment Appeals – Record Minnesota Statutes §176.85, subd. 1 Minnesota Statutes §176.306, subd. 3 A party objecting to a penalty assessment is entitled to a formal hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §176.85, subd. 1. A compensation judge conducting a settlement conference pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §176.306, subd. 3, has no authority to summarily decide disputed issues without affording the parties a full evidentiary hearing. Further, this court is unable to review decisions issued following a settlement conference because there is no evidentiary record of the proceedings. Vacated and remanded.

D-9

• COMPACT • May 2004

Summaries of Decisions Carter v. Rite Hete Corporation, 3/8/04 DOI: _____ Causation - Gillette Injury Substantial evidence supports the finding that the employee failed to establish a Gillette injury to his wrist which resulted in surgery. Affirmed. DeGraw and DeGraw v. Zenith Exteriors, 3/8/04* DOI: 11/21/01 Employment Relationship – Independent Contractor Minnesota Statutes §176.042 Where the independent contractors at issue were not ultimately “liable for a failure to complete the work or service” as specified under subdivision 2(5) of the statute, where they did not “receive[] compensation for work or service performed under a contract on a commission or per-job or competitive bid basis and not on any other basis” as specified in subdivision 2(6) of the statute (emphasis added), and where it was difficult to envision any likely circumstances under which they could suffer a loss under their contracts as specified in subdivision 2(7) of the statute, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the independent contractors at issue satisfied all nine provisions of Minnesota Statutes §176.042, subd. 2, so as to be excluded from coverage as employee’s under subdivision 1 of that section was clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Reversed. Berke-Peavey v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, 3/9/04 DOI: 5/4/93 Attorney Fees – Contingent Fee Minnesota Statutes §176.081, subd. 1(a) Minnesota Statutes §176.081, subd. 1(d) Minnesota Statutes §176.081, subd. 5 Where the employee had filed an objection to her attorney’s statement of attorney fees, pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes §176.081, subd. 1(d), the compensation judge did not err as a matter of law by considering the attorney’s claim for fees under the “reasonable fee” provisions of Minnesota Statutes §176.081, subd. 5, rather than under the straight contingent fee provisions of Minnesota Statutes §176.081, subd. 1(a). Attorney Fees Minnesota Statutes §subd. 7 Where the judge’s conclusion that the employee’s attorney had been successful in obtaining permanent partial disability benefits for the employee had implied a conclusion that payment of those benefits had
D-10
• COMPACT • May 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions been resisted, the compensation judge’s denial of an additional award to the employee under Minnesota Statutes §176.081, subd. 7, was reversed. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Hugill v. Benton County, 3/10/04* DOI: 7/10/02 Job Offer – Refusal Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the job offer was within the restrictions recommended by a treating physician, the compensation judge did not err in concluding that it was unreasonable for the employee to refuse the offer. Earning Capacity Substantial evidence, including vocational opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision that the employee had a loss of earning capacity causally related to her work injury and that she was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits based on actual earnings. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals rejects the employer’s request for a ruling that refusal of suitable employment bars subsequent temporary partial disability benefits as a matter of law. Rehabilitation – Eligibility Minnesota Rules Part 5220.0100, subp. 22B Under the current statute, an employee’s refusal of suitable employment does not preclude eligibility for rehabilitation assistance. Where the job the employee refused was no longer available to her, the compensation judge erred in denying the claim for rehabilitation expenses based on his conclusion that, once the job offer was made, the employee was no longer a qualified employee under Minnesota Rules Part 5220.0100, subp. 22B. Medical Treatment and Expenses – Reasonable and Necessary Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the judge’s denial of the employee’s request for approval of Botox injections. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

D-11

• COMPACT • May 2004

* This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions Adams v. DSR Sales, Inc., 3/12/04 DOI: 6/23/02 Practice and Procedure Intervenors Where the employee had filed a claim for medical expenses and where there was no showing of material prejudice to the parties, the compensation judge did not err in awarding payment to non-intervening healthcare providers. Affirmed. Publicover v. Voltelcon, 3/12/04* DOI: 7/7/00 Evidence – Res Judicata Practice and Procedure – Dismissal Temporary Benefits – Fully Recovered Where the judge had denied the employee’s rehabilitation request on grounds that the employee’s injury had been temporary and had not disabled the employee from work, the compensation judge did not err as a matter of law in dismissing the employee’s claim petition for ongoing temporary benefits based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Vacation of Award – Newly Discovered Evidence Where none of the items offered by the employee as newly discovered evidence had any bearing on either of the orders at issue, the employee did not show good cause to vacate two orders of a compensation judge dismissing the employee’s claim petition on grounds of collateral estoppel in light of a ruling on a rehabilitation request filed shortly after the employee’s claim petition. Affirmed; Petition to Vacate denied. Reggs v. Knutson Construction, 3/12/04 DOI: 3/9/02 Practice and Procedure Where the findings and order are supported by the record, the compensation judge’s adoption of a party’s proposed findings and order is not reversible error per se. Termination for Misconduct Job Search Where the employee had been terminated from his employment, his right to temporary benefits are suspended until he demonstrates that his work-related disability is the cause of his wage loss through a diligent job search. Substantial evidence supports a finding of a diligent job search from May 6, 2002,
D-12
• COMPACT • May 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions through the date of the hearing. Therefore, the compensation judge’s award of temporary total disability benefits is modified to exclude the period of April 23, 2002, through May 5, 2002. Affirmed as modified. Schmidt v. Arrowhead Electric, 3/12/04* DOI: 8/2/01, 10/3/00, 3/19/97 Rehabilitation – Retraining An employee is not required to conduct a job search outside his or her community as a prerequisite for retraining. Reversed. Nini v. Gold’n Plump — Luverne, 3/15/04 DOI: 1/4/02 Causation – Gillette Where the finding that the employee sustained a Gillette injury was based on the opinion of the employee’s treating doctor which had adequate foundation, substantial evidence supports the decision of the compensation judge. Temporary Total Disability Where the employee was receiving medical treatment through the claimed period of temporary total disability and where the QRC concluded that the employee was unemployable, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s award of temporary total disability compensation. Affirmed. Ludford v. Honeywell, Inc., 3/17/04 DOI: 1/27/72 Permanent Total Disability Where the employee was subject to an extreme multitude of non-work-related diagnosed maladies in addition to her work-related injuries, where the judge’s decision was supported by expert medical opinion, and where the judge’s decision was not unreasonable in light of the employee’s age, training and experience, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee remained permanently and totally disabled and had not received benefits fraudulently or in bad faith was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence.

D-13

• COMPACT • May 2004

* This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Causation – Medical Expenses Where it was supported by expert medical opinion, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s work injury was limited to her right and left shoulders was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Affirmed. Peterson v. Camilia Rose Convalescent Center, 3/17/04* DOI: _____ Practice and Procedure – Proposed Findings and Order Under the circumstances of this case, the compensation judge committed reversible error by adopting the employer and insurer’s proposed findings, order and memorandum verbatim. Vacated and Remanded. Fletcher v. Todd County, et al, 3/23/04 DOI: 1/29/01, 8/31/95 Permanent Total Disability – Effective Date Where the QRC testified that the job market in the employee’s area had worsened and where the QRC no longer recommended job placement services, substantial evidence supported the compensation judge’s determination of the effective date of permanent total disability. Credits and Offsets – Social Security Offset Where the work injury was a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s receipt of Social Security and PERA disability benefits, the employer was entitled to an offset. Affirmed. Boegeman v. Valley Plumbing Company, Inc., 3/25/04 DOI: 8/28/01, 7/20/88 Causation In this particular case, given the absence of supporting medical opinion, substantial evidence did not support the judge’s decision that the employee sustained a right foot and ankle injury as a consequence of his work-related left foot and ankle injury.

D-14

• COMPACT • May 2004

* This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions Gillette Injury Substantial evidence, including the employee’s testimony and expert opinion, supported the judge’s conclusion that the employee sustained Gillette injuries to both feet and ankles as a result of his work activities. Evidence – Expert Medical Opinion The compensation judge did not err in admitting into evidence a report of a treating physician obtained the day before hearing, where the opposing parties did not ask to depose the doctor and were given the opportunity to have their experts comment on the report. Attorney Fees Minnesota Statutes §176.191 Given the position of the parties, the judge did not err in concluding that the dispute was primarily between the insurers for purposes of awarding attorney fees pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §176.191. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Cuevas v. Rainbow Foods #51, 3/25/04 DOI: 2/26/02 Causation The compensation judge could rely upon the employee’s testimony to support a finding that the employee sustained a temporary work-related injury. Temporary Total Disability Where the employee’s employment was terminated for reasons unrelated to her work injury, where the employee had no work restrictions, and where the employee did not perform a diligent job search, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s work injury did not substantially contribute to her loss of earnings. Medical Treatment and Expense Where the compensation judge considered medical opinions finding that chiropractic treatment for three months was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the employee’s work injury, but specifically rejected those opinions based upon other evidence, the compensation judge did not err by finding that the employee’s chiropractic treatment was not reasonable and necessary medical treatment. Affirmed.

D-15

• COMPACT • May 2004

Summaries of Decisions Lewis v. St. Therese Home, Inc., 3/31/04 DOI: 2/2/98 Medical Treatment and Expenses – Reasonable and Necessary Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision that certain outstanding treatment charges and proposed treatment were not reasonable and necessary to treat the employee’s work injury. Medical Treatment and Expenses Parties relying on the medical treatment parameters to support their position as to the compensability of medical treatment must raise the specific parameters at the hearing level. Where the parameters are not raised or applied at the hearing level, this court will not consider them on appeal. Maximum Medical Improvement Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision that the employee had reached MMI from the effects of her work injury and that the employee’s temporary total disability claim should be denied on that basis. Affirmed. Winter, deceased by Winter Ott v. D.J. Kranz, 3/31/04* DOD: 11/24/97 Dependency Benefits – Remarriage of Spouse Minnesota Statutes §176.111, subd. 8 Minnesota Statutes §176.111, subd. 9a Minnesota Statutes §176.111, subd. 16 The purpose of Minnesota Statutes §176.111 is to provide wage replacement benefits to a surviving spouse and dependent children. We cannot conclude the phrase “continue to be eligible to receive” requires that benefits to the surviving spouse be suspended upon remarriage. Rather, the dependency statute, as amended effective Jan. 1, 1984, continues to provide for the continuation of benefits to a surviving spouse upon remarriage. Affirmed.

D-16

• COMPACT • May 2004

* This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions • Judicial •

Minnesota Supreme Court
January through March 2004
Case summaries published are those prepared by the WCCA

• Jean O. Kuisle v. Sunrise Assisted Living, a/k/a Karrington Assisted Living and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company, and Minnesota Department of Human Services, Intervenor, A03-1178, Jan. 28, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed July 23, 2003, affirmed without opinion. • Richard Parker v. University of Minnesota, Self-Insured, and Askew Rehabilitation Services, Intervenor, A03-1553, Jan. 28, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Sept. 16, 2003, affirmed without opinion. • Mark Dimon v. Metz Baking and Sentry Claims Services, and Twin Cities Bakery Drivers Health & Welfare Fund and Team Care of Minnesota, P.C., Intervenors, A03-1694, Jan. 29, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Oct. 7, 2003, affirmed without opinion. • Kris Joyce D. Treazise v. United Hospital, Self-Insured/Gallagher Bassett Services, and Allina Home Oxygen and Medical Equipment, Intervenor, A03-1900, Feb. 26, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Nov. 10, 2003, affirmed without opinion. • Dennis L. Summerfelt v. Traverse County and Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust/ RSK Co., and Blue Cross & Blue Shield/Blue Plus of Minnesota, Intervenor, A03-1986, March 18, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Nov. 18, 2003, affirmed without opinion.

D-17

• COMPACT • May 2004

Summaries of Decisions Raymond H. Wagner v. City of Saint Paul, Self-Insured, A03-1975, March 18, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Nov. 21, 2003, affirmed without opinion.

D-18

• COMPACT • May 2004