• Judicial •

Court of Appeals
July through September 2006
Case summaries published are those prepared by the WCCA

Workers’ Compensation

Beack v. DeZurik, 7/10/06

Causation – Gillette Injury Substantial evidence, including medical records, the employee’s testimony and expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee sustained a Gillette injury in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Notice of Injury – Gillette Injury Substantial evidence, including medical records and the employee’s testimony, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employer had adequate notice of the employee’s Gillette injury in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Affirmed.
Berthiaume v. Dalco Roofing, et al, 7/10/06

Causation – Medical Expenses Substantial evidence, in the form of a well-founded medical opinion, exists to support the compensation judge’s decision that the employee’s work injuries are substantial contributing factors in his need for knee replacement surgery. Affirmed.
Carlson v. Ford Motor Company, 7/12/06

Wages – Irregular Where the employee’s weekly wage was irregular, ranging from $225.60 to $1,304.49 over the course of the 23 weekly pay periods preceding her work injury, and where the employee earned less than $1,000 during 15 of those 23 pay periods, the compensation judge’s decision not to exclude the

Summaries of Decisions two lowest weekly pay-periods from her computation of the employee’s average weekly wage was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Wages – Bonus Where the employee’s weekly wage over the course of the 26 weeks prior to her work injury had been irregular, where she had received a $3,000 signing bonus and a $600 Christmas bonus during that period, where the Christmas bonus was based in part on regular attendance at work over the course of the preceding year and so was related to the employee’s individual performance, and where the signing bonus was unrelated to the employee’s individual performance, the compensation judge’s decision to include the Christmas bonus pro-rated over the course of the entire year rather than only the half-year averaging period was not clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence, but the judge’s inclusion of the signing bonus was clearly erroneous. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and modified in part.
Machuca v. Reynaldo Lopez, et al, 7/12/06

Appeals – Record Vacation of the compensation judge’s order for dismissal is required where the judge made no findings on factual issues and there was no record of the proceedings leading to the dismissal. Vacated and remanded.
Ruehling v. Shakopee 1997 LLC d/b/a Cub Foods, 7/19/06

Causation – Gillette Injury Substantial evidence, including the well-founded opinion of the employer and insurer’s medical expert, supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s work activities as a cashier were not a substantial contributing cause of her carpal tunnel syndrome. Affirmed.
Tanner v. Park Nicollet Health Services, 7/25/06

Causation Although the compensation judge erroneously found the evidence failed to show the employee’s treating doctors understood the employee had been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in 1996, there is substantial evidence, including the adequately founded opinion of the independent medical examiner, to support the finding that the employee failed to prove that her work activities for the employer were a substantial contributing cause to the development of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Affirmed as modified.
D-2
• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions
Paoli v. Rainbow Foods, 7/28/06

Causation Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s findings that the employee’s January 2004 injury was a substantial contributing factor in her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine injuries. Permanent Partial Disability Minnesota Rules part 5223.0380, subp. 2(A)(2) Minnesota Rules part 5223.0380, subp. 3(B) Minnesota Rules part 5223.0370, subp. 3(B) Minnesota Rules part 5223.0390, subp. 3(B) Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion and medical records, support the compensation judge’s finding that the employee had met the requirements for additional permanent partial disability for the thoracic spine under Minnesota Rules part 5223.0380, subps. 2(A)(2) and 3(B), as well as permanent partial disability ratings for the cervical and lumbar spine under Minnesota Rules part 5223.0370, subp. 3(B), and Minnesota Rules part 5223.0390, subp. 3(B). Temporary Total Disability Where there was substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, that the employee was unable to work for a period of time, the compensation judge did not err by not addressing the issue of whether the employee had conducted an adequate job search any time during that period or by awarding temporary total disability benefits. Substantial evidence also supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee had not reached maximum medical improvement. Medical Treatment and Expense – Reasonable and Necessary Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s medical treatment was reasonable, necessary and causally related to the employee’s work injury. Medical Treatment and Expense – Treatment Parameters Where the employer and insurer had denied liability for the cervical and lumbar spine injuries and denied medical causation for treatment of the thoracic spine beyond the compression fracture, the medical treatment parameters are not applicable. Medical Treatment and Expense – Change of Physician Dr. Mark Agre’s review of the employee’s physical therapy progress does not constitute an unauthorized change of treating physician and the employer and insurer cannot avoid paying for his services on this basis.

D-3

• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions Intervenors – Medical Providers Medical intervenors are not precluded from reimbursement for failure to appear at hearing where the documentation submitted by the intervenors is sufficient to establish their claims. Rehabilitation – Eligibility Where the employee has restrictions due to her work-related injuries as well as due to a seizure condition that is unrelated to her work injuries, is working in a different job than she held at the time of injury and may be physically unable to perform the tasks of her current job on an indefinite basis, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee is qualified for rehabilitation assistance. Affirmed.
Morrison v. Hormel Foods Corporation, 7/31/06

Practice and Procedure – Adequacy of Findings Causation – Gillette Injury Where the medical record was notably complex, where the judge clearly referenced specific elements of the expert testimony on which she relied in finding no medical causation, where absent medical causation there was no reason for the judge to have cited or applied any law regarding consequential injury and where there was no reason to presume that the judge had erroneously applied the overruled Reese standard of proof for Gillette-type injuries, there was no basis for remanding the case to the compensation judge for fuller findings or application of other law. Causation Evidence – Expert Medical Opinion Where the expert on whose opinion the judge relied was board certified, had examined the employee on two separate occasions, and at each examination had obtained a history from the employee, had reviewed the relevant medical records and had performed a physical examination, the expert medical opinion on which the compensation judge relied was not without proper foundation and the judge’s decision based on that opinion was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the opinion may not have been elicited in response to a hypothetical question. Affirmed.
Schmidt v. Boise Paper Solutions, 7/31/06

Temporary Benefits Where the compensation judge’s findings were detailed and his memorandum substantial, where the medical records were complex and exhaustive, where the judge cited several specific details from the opinions of medical experts whose conclusion differed from his, there was no evidence that the
D-4
• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions judge’s review of the evidence had been insufficiently thorough so as to warrant remand for reconsideration of his denial of the employee’s claim for wage-replacement benefits, particularly in light of the employee’s repeatedly normal EMGs and repeatedly almost normal findings on physical examination both before and after the period of her claim. Practice and Procedure – Matters at Issue Permanent Partial Disability An employer’s initial admission of liability for an alleged work injury to the extent of agreeing to pay for immediately subsequent medical treatment or wage replacement does not necessarily constitute a permanent admission of liability with regard to permanency benefits. Where the employer had paid medical and wage-replacement benefits for an admitted 1993 carpal tunnel injury, including the cost of surgery, and where the compensation judge in denying wage-replacement benefits for a 1997 and a 2003 work injury had relied on a medical opinion that the employee’s care throughout the case had been excessive or unnecessary, it was not a breach of discretion for the compensation judge to find the issue of permanency for the 1993 carpal tunnel injury insufficiently pled and litigated in light of the fact that the employee had not listed a 1993 date of injury on her claim petition – notwithstanding that the petition had sought permanency benefits for an unspecified carpal tunnel injury and medical records in evidence clearly indicated that employee’s only carpal tunnel injury was the 1993 injury. Affirmed.
Swanson v. North Country Hospital, 7/31/06

Causation – Temporary Aggravation Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s decision that the employee’s work injury was only temporary and did not contribute to the employee’s disability or need for treatment for the period at issue. Affirmed.
Sorby v. Soil Testing Service of America, 8/2/06

Apportionment – Equitable Jurisdiction – Out-of-state Injury Because the compensation judge erred by including a Texas work injury in her equitable apportionment of responsibility for wage loss and medical expense benefits, remand was required to allow apportionment between the two liable Minnesota employers.

D-5

• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions Apportionment – Equitable Apportionment – Permanent Partial Disability The compensation judge erred in equitably apportioning responsibility for the employee’s permanent partial disability to a Texas employer; the issue was whether the employee’s Minnesota work injury was a substantial contributing cause of the claimed additional permanent impairment. Reversed and remanded.
Hanegmon v. U.S. Steel Corporation, 8/10/06

Permanent Total Disability Withdrawal from Labor Market – Retirement While differing inferences could be drawn, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s retirement and withdrawal from the labor market was involuntary. The critical factor in determining entitlement to permanent total disability benefits is not the employee’s disability status at retirement, but whether the retirement or withdrawal from the labor market was voluntary or involuntary, and the compensation judge properly awarded permanent total benefits on these facts. Affirmed.
Michlitsch v. Michlitsch Builders, Inc., 8/10/06

Causation – Intervening Cause Medical Treatment and Expense – Surgery Where the employee’s work-related eye condition clearly rendered the employee more vulnerable to re-injury by a blunt blow, and where the episode at home that triggered the employee’s need for surgery – walking into a door jamb in the dark – was not a consequence of “unreasonable, negligent, dangerous or abnormal activity on the part of the employee,” the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s need for surgery was “a natural consequence flowing from the primary injury” and not the product of a superseding, intervening cause was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, although the employee’s permanently weakened condition did not cause the injuring incident at home. Affirmed.

D-6

• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions
Opsahl v. K & S Heating, 8/15/06

Temporary Total Disability Job Offer – Refusal Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(i) Substantial evidence supported the compensation judge’s finding that the employee refused gainful employment he could do in his physical condition, entitling the employer and insurer to discontinue temporary total disability compensation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(i). Affirmed.
Schmitt v. Hanefeld Brothers, Inc., 8/15/06

Wages – Contract Wages – Board and Allowances Where there was little significance in the fact that the employee’s employment contract was unwritten, and where there was testimony and other evidence to reasonably support the judge’s findings, the compensation judge’s implicit conclusion that the employee’s per diem allowance was part of his wage contract and should be included in calculation of his weekly wage was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Affirmed.
Raghubir v. Walker Methodist Health Center, 8/17/06

Wages – Calculation Under the circumstances of this case, the compensation judge properly concluded that the employee’s weekly wage on the date of injury should be calculated with reference to the two weeks the employee worked full time prior to the injury, rather than by averaging the employee’s earnings in part-time employment in the 26-week pre-injury period, where there was no evidence that the employee’s change from part-time to full-time work was expected to be temporary. Medical Treatment and Expense – Change of Physicians The compensation judge properly concluded that the employee was entitled to treatment with the provider she chose as her primary health care provider following her work injury, where she subsequently treated at a different clinic, of the employer’s choice, only because the employer refused to authorize payment to the employee’s chosen provider. Rehabilitation – Eligibility Where the employee was almost a year post-injury at the time of hearing, was not performing her usual pre-injury job duties and was only working half the hours, or fewer, than she had worked prior to her injury, the compensation judge did not err in finding the employee eligible for rehabilitation
D-7
• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions assistance, even though there was no express medical evidence that the employee was likely to be permanently precluded from returning to her pre-injury occupation. Affirmed.
Segler v. Work Connection, 8/17/06

Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition Where there has been a change in the employee’s diagnosis, more extensive medical treatment than anticipated, entitlement to additional permanent partial disability and a causal relationship between the employee’s work injury and his worsened condition, none of which was reasonably anticipated at the time of the award on stipulation, the employee has experienced a substantial change in condition since an award on stipulation in 2002, and the employee’s petition to vacate the award is granted. Petition to vacate granted.
Hallam v. Potlatch Corporation, 8/18/06

Rehabilitation – Retraining Practice and Procedure – Statute of Limitation Minnesota Statutes §176.102, subd. 11(c) Where the employee made a number of filings, which raised the issue of retraining and which resulted in contested administrative conferences, the employee made a request for retraining that tolled the limitation period set out in the statute. Affirmed.
Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc., et al, 8/23/06*

Practice and Procedure – Statute of Limitation Minnesota Statutes §176.151(1) Minnesota Statutes §176.221, subd. 1 Amendments to Minnesota Statutes §176.221, subd. 1, relating to commencement of payment of benefits, did not overrule or modify the provisions of Minnesota Statutes §176.151(1) and case law interpreting time limitations for bringing an action or “proceeding” to recover compensation. By making voluntary payments of benefits to the employee, the employer and insurer initiated a proceeding. Once a proceeding has been commenced, the statute of limitations cannot be revived or re-asserted, despite a subsequent denial of primary liability. Contribution and Reimbursement An employer and insurer that have settled all future claims by the employee for a lump sum are not entitled to lump-sum contribution or reimbursement toward that payment from a nonsettling employer and insurer.
D-8

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
• COMPACT • November 2006 *This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Summaries of Decisions
Smith v. Timberland Lumber Company, Inc., 10/23/06

Causation – Intervening Cause Where the employee was involved a motor-vehicle accident as a passenger, which resulted in the need for additional surgery on the site of his earlier work-related fusion surgery, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the accident was not a superseding, intervening cause that resulted from conduct by the employee which was unreasonable, negligent, dangerous or abnormal. That finding, however, did not compel a finding that the employee’s work injury remained a substantial contributing cause of the employee’s need for surgery in 2005, unless the medical evidence indicated that a causal relationship existed. Causation – Medical Expenses Causation – Substantial Evidence The issue in intervening cause cases is not merely whether the intervening injury or condition is itself a substantial contributing cause of the employee’s subsequent disability but whether that intervening injury or condition has broken the causal connection between the employee’s work injury and that disability. In this case, substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s work injury was not a substantial contributing cause of the employee’s need for additional surgery after the motor-vehicle accident. Affirmed.
Oredson v. Mesabi Electronics, 8/28/06

Vacation of Award – Mistake Where there was no showing that both parties had misapprehended a fact material to the proposed settlement, the employer and insurer did not establish good cause to vacate the award on stipulation covering the employee’s permanent total disability claim. Petition to vacate denied.
Saba v. Independent School District #279, 8/28/06

Practice and Procedure – Service Where a notice of hearing was sent by the Office of Administrative Hearings to the insurer at an incorrect address and the insurer did not receive the notice and failed to appear at the hearing, the Findings and Order of the compensation judge are vacated and the case remanded to the compensation judge for a hearing on the merits of the employee’s medical request. Vacated and remanded.

D-9

• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions
Bordeau v. Green Touch Industries, 8/31/06

Medical Treatment and Expense – Chiropractic Treatment Medical Treatment and Expense – Reasonable and Necessary Where it was clear from the judge’s specific findings that he was familiar with the legal standards established in case law, where it was not unreasonable for the judge to find, based on his findings pursuant to those standards, that the expenses at issue were not reasonable, necessary and causally related to the work injury, and where the judge’s decision was also reasonably supported by expert medical records and opinion, the compensation judge’s denial of payment of the chiropractic expenses at issue was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the judge did not specifically cite the case law containing the legal standards that he applied. Practice and Procedure – Adequacy of Findings Causation – Medical Expenses Where medical as well as chiropractic bills were clearly at issue at the hearing but the judge addressed specifically only the chiropractic treatment, the judge’s reference in his findings to his “conclusion that the employee’s current low back problems are not substantially related to the 1987 work injury” was read to be a reference not just to the employee’s need for chiropractic care but also to his need for medical care, and the judge’s ultimate denial of all “claims of the employee,” medical as well as chiropractic, was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence and did not require remand for further findings and reconsideration. Affirmed.
Zimanski v. Minnesota Diversified Industries, 9/1/06

Medical Treatment and Expense – Reasonable and Necessary Substantial evidence, including adequately founded expert opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s elbow surgery was not reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the employee’s work-related injury. Temporary Total Disability – Job Search Where the employee did not have a reasonable expectation of returning to work for the employer in the near future and a job search would not have been futile on the basis of pending surgery, and where the employee’s short term job search attempts were limited, the compensation judge could reasonably conclude that the job search was not diligent and deny temporary total disability benefits on that basis. Affirmed.

D-10

• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions
Cassidy v. Environment for Learning, 9/6/06

Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition The record does not establish that the employee’s medical or psychiatric condition has substantially improved so as to justify vacation of the compensation judge’s 1994 decision that the employee is permanently and totally disabled as a result of her work injury. Petition to vacate denied.
Jensen v. Aqua Dynamics, et al, 9/12/06

Causation Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s findings that the employee sustained Gillette injuries in the nature of a lumbar pain syndrome and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome on or about Oct. 8, 2002. Causation – Gillette Injury Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s work activities for the employer Aqua Dynamics during the period of Acuity Group’s coverage, including the last several weeks on the Owatonna project, permanently aggravated and were a substantial contributing cause of his lumbar pain syndrome and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Permanent Partial Disability Maximum Medical Improvement Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s award of a 3.5 percent permanency for the employee’s lumbar pain syndrome and the judge’s finding that the employee had not yet reached maximum medical improvement for his low back and hand and wrist conditions. Affirmed.
Rocheford v. Velocity Express, 9/12/06

The compensation judge erred in failing to analyze the facts of this case in light of the applicable independent contractor rules and erred in concluding that the employee’s past status as an independent contractor meant that the employee was an independent contractor on the date of his injury. Vacated and remanded.

D-11

• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions
Williams v. Grand Rapids Baptist Church, et al, 9/12/06

Arising Out Of and In the Course Of – Going To and From Work Where the employee, a pastor jointly employed by two small churches, was injured in an automobile accident going home from an evening service at one of the churches, and where the employee’s vehicle, although needed to get to and from worksites was not an integral part of the performance of his pastoral duties, the exception to the coming and going rule in Gilbert v. Gilbert v. Star Tribune/ Cowles Media, 148 N.W.2d 114, 46 W.C.D. 188 (Minn. 1992), does not apply and the compensation judge properly held the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. Affirmed.
Gluba deceased by Gluba v. Bitzan and Ohren Masonry, 9/13/06

Permanent Partial Disability Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s denial of permanent partial disability for bladder dysfunction and alleged nerve root injury. Rehabilitation – Fees and Expenses Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s denial of the QRC’s bill for services on the basis that the services provided were not reasonable or necessary. Affirmed.
Ball by Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.,/Craig Rebers, 9/18/06

Exclusions from Coverage – Intoxication Arising Out Of and In the Course Of – Prohibited Act Whether or not the employee was intoxicated at the time of his death in an automobile accident, and whether or not the employee had violated an express prohibition against working while intoxicated, the purported intoxication was not the proximate cause of his death, so as to bar compensation, where the employee was merely a passenger in the car at the time of the collision, where the compensation judge reasonably concluded that it had not been established that the employee was aware that the driver was intoxicated, and where the compensation judge reasonably concluded that the collision might well have been due to the driver’s negligence as opposed to her intoxication. Affirmed.
Russell v. Opportunity Partners, Inc., 9/18/06

Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion and medical records, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s work-related injury to his upper extremities did not result in his current psychological condition. Affirmed.
D-12
• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions
Hoffman v. L & D Masonry, et al, 9/19/06

Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause Where the compensation judge’s decision on primary liability and/or causation was apparently based on an erroneous interpretation of the medical evidence and the employee’s testimony, remand for reconsideration was required. Vacated and remanded.
Miska v. Peck Construction, 9/19/06

Causation – Gillette Injury Where the compensation judge could reasonably conclude that the employee’s work activities for the employer and insurer did not substantially contribute to the employee’s disability, the judge did not err in denying the employee’s claim of a Gillette injury arising out of the employment with this employer. Affirmed.
Zamora v. Windham Hills Condominium Association, et al, 9/20/06

Employment Relationship Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that the project management company was the employer of a maintenance man for a condominium association. Affirmed.
Headley v. Datron, Inc./Rehab Services, 9/26/06

Medical Treatment and Expense – Reasonable and Necessary Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that an inhaler was not reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the employee’s thoracic spine condition. Medical Treatment and Expense Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that claimed treatment was not for a consequential injury and was closed out under settlement terms. Affirmed.

D-13

• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions
Zadrozny v. Northwest Airlines, 9/26/06

Causation – Gillette Injury Substantial evidence, including medical opinions and the employee’s testimony, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s work activities for the employer caused her hearing loss. Gillette Injury – Date of Injury Notice of Injury – Gillette Injury Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s Gillette injury culminated on March 12, 2003, the date on which the employee’s doctor imposed work restrictions resulting in modification of the employee’s work duties, and that the employee gave timely statutory notice on that date. Affirmed
Collins v. Community Living Options, 9/28/06

Maximum Medical Improvement Temporary Total Disability Where the parties had stipulated to service of separate MMI reports in 1997, 2003 and 2006, where there was no way to read the compensation judge’s memorandum except to conclude that the judge’s own reasoning required dating of MMI at the 1997 service, where the latter two reports had also both essentially dated MMI at the time of the 1997 report, where the judge offered no explanation or contrary evidence to support her nominal finding of MMI in 2003 and where, on review, the court found no substantial evidence conflicting with its legal conclusion or supporting the nominal but unexplained finding of the judge, the compensation judge’s nominal finding of MMI in 2003 was reversed and the 1997 date substituted in its place, the judge’s award of temporary total disability benefits more than 90 days after the 1997 service was reversed and a related finding was vacated as irrelevant. Temporary Partial Disability Temporary Benefits – Fully Recovered Rehabilitation – Right to a Consultation Where it was reasonably supported by expert medical opinion and the testimony of the employee, and where the judge expressly credited the employee’s testimony, the compensation judge’s award of temporary partial disability benefits based on a finding that the employee remained subject to a chronic condition consequent to her work injury was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, and the judge’s conclusion that the employee was entitled to a rehabilitation consultation was also affirmed. Causation – Medical Expenses Where the employee’s work injury was clearly to her low back, where much of the treatment awarded by the judge appeared to be to parts of her body arguably unrelated to her low back, where
D-14
• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness and necessity of all treatment at issue but not to its causal relationship to the work injury and where the employee’s entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits was affirmed, the compensation judge’s general award of payment of all claimed medical expenses, without any citation of the evidence on which she was relating non-low-back treatment to the low back work injury, was remanded to the compensation judge for reconsideration and more reviewably specific findings. Reversed in part, vacated in part, affirmed with modification in part and remanded in part.
Clark v. Lake Superior Paper, 9/29/06

Appeals Because the issue of the employee’s entitlement to reimbursement of the claimed costs related to a previous hearing has been adjudicated and affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, the employee is precluded from claiming costs related to that same hearing. Vacation of Award Finding no grounds under the statute for which the previous findings and order can be vacated, we deny the employee’s petition to vacate those findings and order. Affirmed.

D-15

• COMPACT • November 2006

Summaries of Decisions • Judicial •

Minnesota Supreme Court
July through September 2006
Case summaries published are those prepared by the WCCA

• Dawn C. Peterson v. Benedictine Health Center/Self-Insured by Berkley Risk Administrative
Company, and RS Medical, Lakewalk Surgery Center, SMDC Health System, Wolverine Anesthesia, and Noridian/Medicare, Intervenors, A06-583, July 10, 2006

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 1, 2006, affirmed without opinion. • Lori Bengston v. Pioneer Packaging and Printing, and St. Paul Travelers, and Medica Health Plus/
Ingenix, Fairview Health Services, Novacare Rehabilitation, Noran Neurological Clinic, and Kari Clinic of Chiropractic, Intervenors, A06-725, July 19, 2006

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 14, 2006, affirmed without opinion.
• Ronald W. Odash v. Pepsi, Inc., and Kemper Insurance Companies, and Medicare/Noridian Administrative Services, Northstar Neurological, and Millennium Neurology, Intervenors, A06-726, July 20, 2006

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 14, 2006, affirmed without opinion.
• Douglas Kurtz (deceased), by Dawn Gillman v. Lakes Medi Van, Inc., and State Fund Mutual Insurance Company, and American Family Mutual Insurance Group, Intervenor, A06-952, Aug. 23, 2006

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed April 25, 2006, affirmed without opinion.
• Neil Prochnow v. Robert Gibb and Sons, Inc., and Cincinnati Insurance Companies, and St. Francis Medical Center, Meritcare Hospital, Meritcare Medical Group, and United States Veterans Affairs, Intervenors, A06-991, Aug. 23, 2006

Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed April 27, 2006, affirmed without opinion.

D-16

• COMPACT • November 2006