• Judicial •

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

Workers’ Compensation

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 employerconducted 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 workrelated 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 postinjury, 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, A061793, 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