• Judicial •

Court of Appeals
April through June 2004
Case summaries published are those prepared by the WCCA

Workers’ Compensation

Cull v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 4/1/04* DOI: 12/8/98 Evidence – Expert Medical Opinion An expert’s alleged lack of information goes to the weight of his or her opinion, rather than to its foundation. The expert medical opinions which the compensation judge relied upon in this case had adequate foundation. Causation – Aggravation Expert medical opinion is not the only factor to consider when determining whether an aggravation of a pre-existing condition is temporary or permanent. Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s findings that the employee’s work injury had caused a permanent aggravation of her pre-existing low back condition and that the proposed surgery is causally related to the employee’s work injury. Affirmed. Black v. Honeywell, Inc., 4/5/04 DOI: Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition The evidence offered in this case demonstrates a substantial change in the employee’s medical condition sufficient to warrant vacation of the 1991 award on stipulation. Petition to vacate granted.

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

Summaries of Decisions Anderson v. Proforce, 4/8/04 DOI: 9/11/01, 7/7/99 Medical Treatment and Expense Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s denial of the requested fusion surgery. Causation Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s decision that the employee sustained a specific injury and a Gillette injury as of Sept. 11, 2001. Affirmed. Nagel v. Hennepin County, 4/6/04 DOI: 10/24/01 Gillette Injury – Causation Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the judge’s conclusion that the employee did not sustain a work-related Gillette injury to her cervical spine. Evidence Practice and Procedure The compensation judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to admit into evidence a detailed written description of the employee’s job duties that was duplicative of the employee’s testimony. Affirmed. Klein v. Thomson Corporation/West Group, 4/8/04 DOI: 1/21/02, 7/14/98 Causation – Aggravation Causation – Medical Expenses Causation – Intervening Cause Causation – Pre-existing Condition Where it was not unreasonable and was supported by adequately founded expert medical opinion, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s 1998 work injury was not a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s January 2002 need for low back surgery or in his March 2002 motor vehicle accident or in his subsequent disability and need for medical treatment was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence.

D-2

• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions Gillette Injury Causation – Gillette Injury Causation – Intervening Cause Causation – Pre-existing Condition Where the employment tasks identified by the employee did not in and of themselves appear to be so stressful and repetitive as to require reversal of the compensation judge’s conclusion contrary to the medical opinion on which the judge relied, and where the medical opinion on which the judge relied was not unfounded and did not improperly apply the Reese legal standard instead of the Steffen legal standard, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee did not sustain a Gillette-type work injury was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Affirmed. Bieniek v. Griggs-Cooper, Inc., et al, 4/16/04 DOI: 1997, 1988 Practice and Procedure – Temporary Order Where, subsequent to the issuance of a temporary order concerning payment of proposed lumbar fusion surgery, the petitioning employer and insurer received medical evidence raising issues as to both causation and reasonableness and necessity, it was appropriate to vacate the temporary order. Temporary order vacated. Feig v. City of St. Paul, 4/16/04 DOI: 2/11/97 Attorney Fees – Roraff Where the employer objected to the employee’s request for Roraff fees and requested a hearing on the issue, but the compensation judge issued an award of fees without hearing, the award of fees was vacated and the matter remanded for hearing and new findings. Vacated and remanded Hamm v. Marvin Windows and Doors, et al, 4/21/04 DOI: 3/15/90 Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Causation – Intervening Cause Where, prior to the nonwork-related electrical burn injury that resulted in amputation of his nondominant arm, the employee had already been incapable of performing more than light to medium work within his restrictions due to his low back work injury, and where it was not unreasonable for the compensation judge to conclude that the low back disability, in combination with the employee’s age, training, and experience and the type of work available in his community,
D-3
• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions was substantial, the compensation judge’s conclusions that the employee’s low back work injury was a substantial contributing factor in his permanent total disability and that his nonwork-related electrical burn injury was not a superseding intervening cause of that disability was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Affirmed. Jackson v. Polaris Industries, 4/21/04 DOI: 1/14/02 Temporary Benefits Causation Causation – Medical Expenses Practice and Procedure – Remand Where the court could not resolve a material inconsistency between two of the judge’s findings, and where the judge’s findings did not contain a sufficient statement of the facts to form a basis for the award of temporary total disability benefits, the court vacated the judge’s findings and order and remanded the matter for redetermination. Vacated and remanded. Nemitz v. Walker Methodist, et al, 4/21/04 DOI: 4/13/90 Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion and the employee’s lack of medical treatment for many years, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s 1990 work injury was not a substantial contributing cause of her current low back condition. Affirmed. Tiffany v. Thielen Bus Lines, Inc., 4/27/04 DOI: 1/2/01 Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition Where the employee submitted evidence of worsening mid- and low back symptoms, new treatment for the mid- and low back, and MRI scans showing degenerative changes in the mid- and low back subsequent to a full, final and complete settlement, specifically referencing only the cervical spine and left shoulder, there is a sufficient prima facie showing of a change in condition to vacate the award on stipulation. Petition to vacate granted.

D-4

• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions Larson v. Mark J. Traut Wells, Inc., 4/29/04 DOI: 11/1/02 Temporary Total Disability Job Search Withdrawal from the Labor Market Where the compensation judge failed to make any findings with respect to the employer and insurer’s claims that the employee had failed to make a diligent job search and had withdrawn from the labor market, the judge’s award of temporary total disability benefits is vacated and the case remanded for further findings. Vacated and remanded. Westling v. Untiedt Vegetable Farm, 4/29/04 DOI: Causation Where no medical opinion provided a causal relationship between the employee’s work injury and his chronic pain syndrome and depression, substantial evidence did not support the compensation judge’s decision. Reversed. Bradburn v. Northwest Airlines Corporation, 5/4/04 DOI: 11/13/97 Occupational Disease Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee developed occupational asthma due to exposure to chemicals in the workplace. Affirmed. Barros v. Scimed Life Systems, 5/5/04 DOI: 2/7/00, 12/1/99 Causation – Gillette Injury Given the lack of supporting medical opinion, substantial evidence does not support the compensation judge’s finding that the employee sustained a Gillette injury to her right arm. Reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded in part.

D-5

• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions Pfannenstein v. Earthworks Excavating, 5/6/04 DOI: 12/6/02 Causation Evidence – Credibility The compensation judge’s finding that the employee was not a credible witness is not manifestly contrary to the substantial evidence of record, and combined with the opinion of Dr. Yellin, supports the judge’s determination that the employee failed to prove he sustained an injury arising out of his employment. Affirmed. Finley v. Taystee Baking Company, 5/7/04 DOI: Appeals – Notice of Appeal Minnesota Statutes §176.285 Service by mail is not effective if the original mailing is incorrectly addressed. Where service by mail was attempted, but the original mailing was addressed to the incorrect suite, was returned to the sender, and remailed three days after the time for an appeal had expired, this court lacks jurisdiction and has no authority to hear the appeal. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Hanson v. Team Personnel Service, Inc., 5/7/04* DOI: 8/23/02 Temporary Total Disability Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1 If temporary total disability benefits have been discontinued because the employee has been released to return to work without work-injury-related restrictions, and if restrictions are subsequently reimposed prior to 90 days post maximum medical improvement (MMI) and prior to payment of 104 weeks of temporary total disability compensation, the employee once again becomes eligible, under authority implied in Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(h), for temporary total disability benefits at the time of the reimposition of restrictions, subject to defenses. Practice and Procedure – Remand Temporary Total Disability Where, prior to 90-days post MMI and prior to receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, benefits had been discontinued because the employee had returned to work without restrictions, and where, upon reimposition of restrictions, the compensation judge had erroneously denied recommencement of benefits under Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(e)(2), based on a
D-6
• COMPACT • August 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions finding that the employee was not “actively employed” at the time of the reimposition of restrictions, the matter was remanded to the compensation judge for reconsideration and findings as to the employee’s entitlement. Appeals – Law of the Case Jurisdiction – Subject Matter Where the compensation judge had made certain findings as to the employee’s diagnosis, restrictions and credibility during a benefits period not at issue before the judge and already addressed and settled under previous litigation, and where one of those findings was contrary to an unappealed conclusion in the previous litigation, the finding contrary to the previous litigation was reversed, and the other findings regarding that settled period were vacated as outside the judge’s jurisdiction. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. Sundby v. City of St. Peter, et al, 5/10/04* DOI: 6/27/92, 12/31/86 Credits and Offsets – Social Security Offset Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 4 Child’s insurance benefits are included in calculating the amount of the Social Security offset against permanent and total disability benefits under M.S. §176.101, subd. 4. Affirmed. Lipez, Sr., v. Quality Pork Processors, 5/13/04 DOI: 11/7/00 Temporary Partial Disability – Earning Capacity The compensation judge’s award of temporary partial disability benefits is affirmed when the employer and insurer failed to rebut the presumption that the employee’s post-injury earnings reflected his diminished earning capacity. Penalties The compensation judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the employee’s claim for penalties for nonpayment of benefits but remand is necessary for consideration of the claim for penalties for noncompliance with Minnesota Statutes §176.238. Affirmed and remanded.

D-7

• COMPACT • August 2004

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

Summaries of Decisions Schjenken v. Bermo, Inc., 5/13/04 DOI: 2/8/00 Rehabilitation – Eligibility Minnesota Rules, part 5220.0100, subp. 22, requires the employee be precluded from engaging in either the job the employee held at the time of the injury or the employee’s usual and customary occupation to be eligible for rehabilitation assistance. Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s usual and customary occupation was a welder, and that the employee was likely to be permanently precluded from engaging in this occupation. Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee was a qualified employee and was entitled to rehabilitation services. Practice and Procedure – Expansion of the Issues Where the employer had three months notice of the employee’s claim for temporary partial disability, presented testimony at the hearing in defense of the claim, and showed no specific prejudice as a result of the addition of the claim, the compensation judge properly included the employee’s claim for temporary partial disability benefits at the hearing. Earning Capacity Where the employee provided evidence of ongoing restrictions and reduced wages, obtained a number of jobs during the period in dispute, and provided evidence of a job search, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the employee suffered a loss of earning capacity as a result of her work injury, and the compensation judge’s award of temporary partial disability benefits. Petition to Vacate – Newly Discovered Evidence It is not the purpose of this court’s authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §§176.461 and 176.521, to permit repeated litigation of factual issues already decided on competent evidence. The award of temporary partial disability benefits in this case is effective through the date of hearing. If, posthearing, the employee is no longer entitled to wage loss benefits because she has returned to work for the employer at full wages, Minnesota Statutes §§176.238 and 176.239 provide the appropriate remedy for discontinuing payment of wage-loss benefits. Affirmed. Petition to vacate denied. Bergeleen v. Hennepin County Medical Center, 5/17/04 DOI: 5/31/02 Attorney Fees – Heaton While the record minimally supported the conclusion that a dispute existed over the employee’s entitlement to some computer classes, the judge’s fee award of more than $7,000 was clearly excessive where the fee statement did not document the claimed hours of work, some time spent was clearly unrelated to any rehabilitation dispute, there had been no trial or conference in the matter,
D-8
• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions primary liability had been admitted, no depositions were taken or scheduled, no independent experts were consulted, and the issue was uncomplicated and could not have required much preparation. Affirmed as modified. Cook v. Arnold Memorial Health Care Center, 5/19/04 DOI: 9/25/92 Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion and the employee’s testimony, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s 1992 work injury was a substantial contributing cause of the employee’s disability and need for treatment after June 5, 1997. Affirmed, Engelstad v. Hibbing Electric, 5/19/04 DOI: 5/19/98, 10/4/97, 7/8/96 Practice and Procedure – Dismissal Minnesota Rules Part 1415.1700, subp. 2 In this particular case, because Minnesota Rules Part 1415.1700, subp. 2, contains no time limit for filing a response to a motion to dismiss, and because no hearing was held on the motion, the employee was effectively denied due process when the compensation judge dismissed her claim petition. Reversed and remanded. Ganfield v. City of Richfield, 5/24/04* DOI: 12/14/00 Causation – Peace Officers Presumption Minnesota Statutes §176.011, subd. 15 The employee was not entitled to the operation of the presumption of occupational disease where substantial evidence supported the findings that he had not been diagnosed with myocarditis and that his cardiomyopathy was not the result of an alleged work-related previous myocarditis condition. Affirmed.

D-9

• COMPACT • August 2004

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

Summaries of Decisions Peter v. Volt Information Sciences, 5/26/04 DOI: 6/3/00 Wages – Allowances Minnesota Statutes §176.011, subd. 3 Where the compensation judge properly concluded that the employee’s equipment rental agreement with the employer was not “part of the wage contract,” as would be required under Minnesota Statutes §176.011, subd. 3, for its proceeds to be included in the employee’s weekly wage, the compensation judge’s decision to exclude from the employee’s weekly wage the amount paid weekly to the employee pursuant to his separate equipment rental agreement with the employer was affirmed. Affirmed. Beckman v. Northside Construction, 6/1/04 DOI: 4/22/87 Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition Because the employee submitted the documentation that was missing in his first petition to vacate, and because the question of causation is not entirely clear, the matter is referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing and factual findings on the factors specified in Fodness v. Standard Café, 41 W.C.D. 1054 (W.C.C.A. 1989). Pending claims for subsequent work injuries do not make a petition to vacate premature where success in litigation related to the subsequent injuries will not allow the employee to make a full recovery of benefits. Referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Kunkel v. Target Corporation, 6/1/04 DOI: 6/3/95 Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition The employee's petition to vacate is granted where, although the diagnosis of the employee's underlying condition had not changed significantly, the employee provided evidence of a substantial change for the worse in her ability to work, an increase in her permanent partial disability, and significantly more costly and extensive medical care than was anticipated at the time of settlement. There was no dispute as to the existence of a causal relationship between the employee's worsened condition and the injury covered by the settlement. Additionally, although the initial discectomy could have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the award, the employee's subsequent fusion surgeries and operation to correct pruritis resulting from the first fusion surgery could not have been reasonably contemplated at the time of settlement. Petition to vacate granted.

D-10

• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions Vike v. Horwitz, Inc., 6/1/94 DOI: 1/2/02 Maximum Medical Improvement Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge's decision that the employee reached maximum medical improvement from his work injury. Affirmed. Kahlstorf v. Potlatch Corporation, 6/2/04 DOI: 1/3/93 Appeals – Notice of Appeal Where the employer did not appeal the compensation judge's finding that the employee had conducted a reasonable job search and did not otherwise address the issue of job search in the notice of appeal, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the compensation judge's determination on the issue of job search. Permanent Total Disability Causation – Substantial Contribution Cause Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge's finding that the employee's 1993 work injury was a substantial contributing cause of his permanent total disability. Affirmed. Tillemans v. Pierce Company of Minneapolis, Inc., 6/2/04* DOI: 3/2/00 Causation – Temporary Aggravation Causation Substantial evidence of record supports the compensation judge's finding that the employee's workrelated injury to her head and cervical spine represented a temporary aggravation of her pre-existing condition, and his finding that the employee did not sustain an injury to her left shoulder and thoracic spine as a result of her work-related injury. Affirmed.

D-11

• COMPACT • August 2004

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

Summaries of Decisions Rivas a/k/a Pleigo v. Car Wash Partners, 6/4/04 DOI: 4/11/03 Job Offier – Refusal Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(i) Where the employer conditioned its post-injury job offer on a satisfactory explanation as to the employee's eligibility to work in this country, and where the unauthorized alien employee failed to respond to the offer because of his illegal immigration status, the compensation judge properly concluded that the employee had refused gainful employment within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(i) and was therefore ineligible for temporary total disability benefits. Affirmed. Scanlon v. Caille Farm, Inc., 6/4/04 DOI: 5/29/02 Practice and Procedure Where the parties fail to present evidence on an issue necessary for the determination of the appeal, the matter is remanded to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing. Referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings. McCannell v. Cal-Inland, Inc., 6/8/04 DOI: 8/11/87 Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition Where the employee failed to demonstrate a significant change in diagnosis or any significant change in his ability to work, and the employer and insurer paid the employee's medical expenses for his surgery and an increased amount of permanent partial disability benefits, the petition to vacate the award on stipulation is denied. Petition to vacate denied. Busch v. Wal-Mart, 6/9/04 DOI: 10/12/01 Notice of Injury The evidence adequately supported the compensation judge's decision that the employee, as a reasonable person, had sufficient information as to the nature, seriousness, and probable compensability of her work injury to trigger commencement of the notice period as of the date of injury, making her notice of injury to the employer more than 180 days later untimely. Affirmed.
D-12
• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions Drinkwater v. Randall Brothers Heating, 6/10/04 DOI: 11/3/00 Rehabilitation – Retraining Where it was not unreasonable in light of the factors articulated in Poole v. Farmstead Foods, 42 W.C.D. 970 (W.C.C.A. 1989), the compensation judge's award of the retraining at issue was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding the fact that it arguably presumed ongoing improvement in the employee's condition in reliance on the employee's treating doctor's somewhat speculative prognosis. Affirmed. Hamann v. Syngenta Corporation, 6/10/04 DOI: 12/20/01 Temporary Total Disability Where substantial evidence in the form of the employee's testimony supported the compensation judge's finding of a reasonably diligent job search by an employee having work restrictions from his injury, he qualified for temporary total disability compensation. Maximum Medical Improvement Where the employee's treating physician continued to recommend further surgery for the employee's right upper extremity condition, substantial evidence supported the compensation judge's finding that maximum medical improvement had not yet been reached. Medical Expenses – Reasonable and Necessary Where a bill for medical charges was not supported by evidence as to the specific treatments provided, and where the employee apparently also treated for another condition with the same doctor during all or part of the period in question, there was insufficient evidence to support an award of reimbursement for the treatment charges billed. Affirmed in part and vacated in part. Mathison v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 6/16/04 DOI: 4/16/02, 2/4/02, 8/15/01 Temporary Total Disability Where the employee made no search for work for over 10 months after being released to return to work with restrictions, and where the employer had twice earlier declined to provide work for the employee within her restrictions, albeit on grounds that the employee's condition was not work related, the compensation judge's denial of temporary total disability benefits on grounds that the employee did not have a reasonable expectation of work with the employer and yet did not conduct
D-13
• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions a reasonably diligent job search during the benefits period in question was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Affirmed. Davidson v. SDW Holdings Corporation d/b/a SAPPI Fine Paper, 6/21/04 DOI: 5/25/02 Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge's finding that the employee's work activities for the employer were a substantial contributing cause of the employee's Gillette injury. Maximum Medical Improvement Substantial evidence, including medical records and the employee's testimony, support the compensation judge's finding that the employee had not reached maximum medical improvement as of Oct. 9, 2002. Affirmed. Rackow v. Midwest Coast Transportation, Inc., 6/23/04 DOI: 12/31/79 Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition Practice and Procedure – Referral for Evidentiary Hearing Where there was no real dispute over the fact that the employee had suffered a substantial change in his medical condition since his settlement, but where there was conflicting evidence as to whether that change was causally related to the employee's work injury, the employee's petition to vacate his settlement on grounds of substantial change in condition was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing and findings, subject to appeal, on the causal relationship between the evident post-settlement changes in the employee's condition and the employee's work injury. Referred to OAH for evidentiary hearing. Majerle v. Forest Lake Chrysler, 6/25/04 DOI: 5/8/00 Permanent Partial Disability – Combined Ratings Permanent Partial Disability – Knee Minnesota Rules Part 5223.0510, supbs. 3B(1) and 3B(2) Where the rule at issue clearly contemplated a 2 percent rating for an employee who had up to 50 percent of a meniscal cartilage removed and a 3 percent rating for an employee who had more
D-14
• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions than 50 percent of that cartilage removed, and where the employee had already been awarded compensation for a 3 percent impairment based on a previous surgical removal of more than 50 percent of the cartilage, the compensation judge properly denied the employee's claim for an additional 2 percent impairment, notwithstanding the fact that the employee had undergone a second surgical removal of less than 50 percent of the same cartilage. Affirmed. Shamp v. Daybreak Foods, 6/25/04 DOI: 5/22/99 Rehabilitation – Discontinuance Where the employee had not been successful in alleviating her wage loss after nearly four years of placement assistance, and where there was vocational testimony indicating that additional skills would enhance the employee's employability, substantial evidence supported the judge's decision to amend the employee's rehabilitation plan to provide for exploration of retraining. Attorney Fees – Roraff The compensation judge did not err in concluding that a dispute existed for purposes of establishing eligibility for Roraff fees or in calculating the fee award on a contingent basis, based on the cost of the disputed surgery, without regard to the Irwin factors, pursuant to Cahow v. Brookdale Motors, 61 W.C.D. 427, 438 (W.C.C.A. 2001). Affirmed.

D-15

• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions • Judicial •

Minnesota Supreme Court
April through June 2004
Case summaries published are those prepared by the WCCA

• Constance M. Nitz v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, and Self-Insured/Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., and Twin Cities Spine Center, Intervenor, A04-306, April 28, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Jan. 27, 2004, affirmed without opinion. • Steven G. Amunrud v. Advance United Expressway and MIGA/ASU Risk Management Services, Ltd., A04-339, May 27, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Feb. 2, 2004, affirmed without opinion. • Todd D. and Larry D. DeGraw v. Zenith Exteriors and General Casualty Companies, and St. Croix Orthopedic P.A. and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Intervenors, A04-595, June 29, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 8, 2004, affirmed without opinion. • James Schmidt v. Arrowhead Electric, and MN Rural Electric Trust/CompCost, A04604, June 29, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 12, 2004, affirmed without opinion. • Tamera M. Peterson v. Camilia Rose Convalescent Center (n/k/a Willows Convalescent Center), and Lumbermen’s Underwriting Alliance, and Orthopedic Medicine & Surgery, Ltd., and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota & Blue Plus, Intervenors, A04-653, June 29, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 17, 2004, affirmed without opinion.
D-16
• COMPACT • August 2004

Summaries of Decisions • Michelle Hugill v. Benton County, and Self-Insured/MN Counties Insurance Trust/RSK Co., and Allina/Sister Kenny Institute, Mickelson Rehab. Consultants, Third Party Solutions, Inc., Noran Neurological Clinic, and Foley Physical Rehab., Inc., A04-598, June 29, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 10, 2004, affirmed without opinion. • Donald Publicover v. Voltelcon and Hartford Specialty Risk Services, A04-603, June 29, 2004 Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 12, 2004, affirmed without opinion.

D-17

• COMPACT • August 2004