Simonson v. Douglas County, No. A24-1309 (Minn. Apr. 16, 2025)
In reviewing this case, it is important to note that the 2016 version of Minn. Stat. § 176.101 was applicable for this particular date of injury. However, as of October 1, 2018, the statute was amended to set an irrebuttable retirement age of 72.
The Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion on April 16, 2025, in the case of Simonson v. Douglas County, addressing the standard for rebutting the retirement presumption under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subdivision 4 (2016), pertaining to permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The Court was tasked with deciding two main issues: (1) the correct standard of proof required to rebut the retirement presumption; and (2) the proper legal test for determining whether an employee has rebutted the retirement presumption.
The employee, Dawn Simonson, sustained a compensable lower back injury in 1996 while employed as a histologist at Douglas County Hospital. The parties stipulated that the employee was permanently and totally disabled due to the work injury, and she began receiving PTD benefits. Upon reaching age 67 in 2023, the employer and insurer ceased PTD benefit payments, citing the retirement presumption in Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2016). The employee contended that she had not retired and would have continued working past age 67 had she not been injured, and asserting that her financial hardship rebutted the presumption of retirement.
A workers’ compensation judge heard the case and applied the factors from Davidson[1] to assess whether the employee had rebutted the retirement presumption. Finding the evidence evenly balanced and concluding that the employee had not met her burden to rebut the retirement presumption, the judge denied the employee’s claim. The judge applied a “preponderance of the evidence” standard rather than the higher “substantial proof to the contrary” standard argued for by Douglas County. The employee appealed the compensation judge’s decision to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA).
The WCCA reversed the compensation judge’s decision, determining that the employee had successfully rebutted the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. The WCCA held that the compensation judge had misinterpreted and misapplied the law by treating the Davidson factors as a rigid checklist, noting that these factors were developed in non-PTD contexts and were not well-suited to cases involving permanent total disability. Instead, the WCCA emphasized that an employee’s financial predicament should be the primary factor in determining whether the retirement presumption has been rebutted. Concluding that the employee’s financial need outweighed any weak evidence of retirement intent, the WCCA found the compensation judge’s decision “manifestly contrary to the evidence.” The WCCA affirmed the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard. The employer and insurer appealed the WCCA’s ruling, challenging both the WCCA’s legal interpretation and the standard of proof applied.
The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that in determining whether an employee has overcome the retirement presumption under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2016), the key inquiry for workers’ compensation courts is whether the employee would have retired regardless of the disability. The employee bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. A mere statement of intent not to retire is insufficient on its own but may be weighed alongside other relevant evidence. Such evidence can include factors like the availability of similar work, presence and adequacy of retirement benefits, the employee’s age and work history, and their willingness to delay Social Security benefits if suitable employment existed. The Court explained these factors are not to be applied mechanically or treated as a checklist; instead, judges must engage in a nuanced evaluation of how these considerations interact, recognizing that no single factor is determinative. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed in part (standard of proof), reversed in part (legal test), and remanded the case to the compensation judge for further proceedings.
Takeaways
- Retirement Presumption: For injuries occurring before October 1, 2018, employees are presumed retired at age 67, ending PTD benefits.
- Rebuttal Standard: To continue PTD benefits past 67, employees must show by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have remained in the workforce but for the injury.
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Simonson v. Douglas County highlights the need for individualized assessments in Minnesota workers’ compensation cases, especially when evaluating whether an employee has rebutted the statutory retirement presumption. To continue receiving permanent total disability (PTD) benefits beyond age 67, employees must provide persuasive evidence—beyond a mere assertion of an intent not to retire—that they would have remained in the labor market but for their disability. In Simonson, gaps in the record (such as missing information about the employee’s household income, timing of nursing services, and other potential benefits) impeded a full evaluation of her financial condition and eligibility for ongoing PTD benefits. When defending against an employee’s rebuttal of the retirement presumption, it is critical to conduct a thorough investigation to uncover relevant facts surrounding financial needs, work history, and available retirement resources, amongst other facts.
The determination of whether the retirement presumption is rebutted is based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. If you have any questions concerning your Minnesota workers’ compensation claims, please contact your attorneys at Brown & Carlson!
For a detailed review of the Court’s opinion, you can access the full text here: https://mn.gov/workcomp-stat/sup/Simonson%20-%20Sup%2004.16.25.html
[1] Davidson factors include: the employee’s intent to retire; application for Social Security retirement benefits; evidence of a financial need for employment income, including the adequacy of a pension or other retirement income; whether the employee or the employer initiated a discussion of retirement; whether the employee sought rehabilitation assistance; and whether the employee actively sought alternative employment or was working. Davidson v. Thermo King, 64 Minn. Workers’ Comp. Dec. 380, 389 (WCCA 2004) (citing Dillemuth v. Owatonna Tool Co., 59 Minn. Workers’ Comp. Dec. 349, 357 (WCCA 1999)).
