Assessing Consequential Mental Health Claims
Some Minnesota workers’ compensation practitioners would say that it appears claims of consequential mental health injuries are on the rise. Cynics will say this is done to increase the value of a workers’ compensation claim. More trusting people will say it is due to increased access to mental health treatment and recognition of mental health […]
PTSD Claims post Peterson v. City of Minneapolis and the DSM-5-TR
In 2013, the Minnesota legislature amended the Workers’ Compensation Act to allow claims for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as an occupational disease. Since that time, the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Court of Appeals have frequently needed to address questions on PTSD and its compensability as a work injury. Last […]
Daniel Johnson v. Concrete Treatments, Inc. & Furniture & Things
CASE SUMMARY In this workers’ compensation case the Minnesota Supreme Court was tasked with determining two main issues: (1) Whether the compensation judge’s findings regarding the employee’s October 2018 injury were supported by the evidence; and (2) Whether the employee could assert a direct claim for unpaid medical bills from non-intervening medical providers when the […]
How Employers/Insurers Can Save $1 Million on In-Home Nursing Services
Exposures for nursing services provided by a family member can surpass $1 million over the life of the claim. A recent case from the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals, highlighted an important lesson for employers and insurers in handling claims that include family provided nursing services. The lesson being that obtaining an expert to opine […]
The Once in a Blue Moon Case: Excess Fees CAN Be Denied in Minnesota
In a perfect storm of facts meeting law, a recent Workers Compensation Court of Appeals decision, Jurgensen v. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. upheld an ALJ’s decision to deny requested excess attorneys’ fees. A decision which denied excess fee recovery was recently upheld, when a Judge determined that the statutory cap of recovery on a lump […]
Notice and Gillette Injuries
Minnesota Statute § 176.141 does not set forth a different notice requirement for a Gillette injury than for a specific injury. Over the years, the courts have clarified and interpreted notice as it pertains to Gillette injuries. In Schmidt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. WC21-6437 (WCCA May 16, 2020), affirmed by the Supreme Court of […]
The Assault Exception
For an employee’s injury resulting from an attack at work to be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, “an injury must arise out of the employment, must be in the course of the employment and must not come within the ‘assault exception.’ ” Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 268, 271 (Minn. 1992). Pursuant to Minn. […]
Limiting Unnecessary Conditional Payment Disputes
Mandatory reporting to Medicare is now common practice with all workers’ compensation claims. As part of this reporting, the insurer must indicate whether it has “ongoing responsibility for medicals” or “ORM.” ORM is when the Responsible Reporting Entity (“RRE”), the insurer, assumes obligation to pay for medical benefits associated with a work injury. An ORM […]
Supreme Court Clarifies Benefits for PTSD/Occupational Injury Claims – A Right to Benefits End When the DSM-5 PTSD Criteria No Longer Apply
In a March 8, 2023 decision, the state Supreme Court clarified the right to workers’ compensation benefits for an occupational disease, mental impairment/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) claim. The Court confirmed that the right to benefits ends when the injured worker no longer meets the DSM-5 requirements for a PTSD diagnosis. In Chrz v. Mower […]
How a Recent Minnesota Supreme Court Changes PTSD Presumption Cases
In general, Employees bear the burden of proof to show that their injury is causally related to their work. The Minnesota legislature has carved out a presumption, however, in Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 15 (e) relating to PTSD claims. This statute states that Employees in certain occupations are entitled to a rebuttable presumption that […]
