In a recent decision, Eastlund v. Another Man’s Treasure, No. WC25-6624 (W.C.C.A. July 6, 2026), the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals provided clear guidance on two threshold issues involved when an injured person claims a work injury. The first issue relates to whether or not there is an employment relationship between the injured person and the alleged employer. The second issue relates to whether the alleged injury causing incident can be considered to have arisen out of and occurred within the course and scope of the alleged employment.
Background
The alleged employee Eastlund initially started working at Another Man’s Treasure in August 2023. This was a secondhand retail store and her job duties included running the cash register, communicating with the store owner about buying and selling items, and opening/closing the store. Eastlund applied for and accepted a job with a different employer in December 2023 with a start date in January 2024. On December 7, 2023, she texted her resignation to the owner of Another Man’s Treasure. She turned in her keys to the store the next day. She also informed her co-worker Heidi that she had terminated her employment. Heidi did not have authority to hire or fire employees, although at some point after Eastlund’s resignation but before her alleged injury Heidi told Eastlund that she would talk to the owner about Eastlund working for him again. Prior to her resignation, she had not sustained any work injuries and was not having any issues with her low back.
Then on December 24, 2023, Heidi called Eastlund asking for her help in moving an ATV that was interfering with customer movement around the store. Eastlund lived close to the store and agreed to help. When Eastlund tried to push the ATV to the side, she heard her back pop and she fell to the floor. She was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a moderate L1 superior endplate compression fracture. As a result of the injury, she could not start her new job in January 2024, and she continued to have restrictions on her activities due to the injury.
Eastlund filed a claim petition seeking payment of wage loss benefits, medical expenses, a vocational rehabilitation consultation, medical mileage, and intervention claims. The employer and its insurer denied primary liability for the injury. After a hearing on July 16, 2025, the compensation judge denied the appellant’s claims, finding that she was not an employee of the employer on the date of injury and, therefore, her injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.
The Appeal
Eastlund’s appeal was based on the argument that the compensation judge erred by finding that she was not an employee of the employer on the date of injury, and by finding that her injury did not occur in the course of employment because the injury happened as she performed a service in furtherance of the employer’s interests. The WCCA affirmed the findings of the compensation judge on both counts.
Employment Relationship
The WCCA started their analysis by stating that under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act an employee is defined as “any person who performs services for another for hire,” and an employer is defined as “any person who employs another to perform a service for hire.” Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 9 and 10. They also noted that a claim for compensation under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act requires that the injury arises out of a service performed pursuant to a contract for hire, either express or implied.
In this case, Eastlund was employed earlier by the employer but resigned on December 7 and turned in her keys on December 8. From that point on, she was no longer an employee because she was no longer performing services for the employer for hire. Eastlund tried to argue that because Heidi told her that she would discuss having her return to work with the owner and she had performed a service for the employer, she was an employee on the date of injury. The WCCA was not persuaded by that argument. There was no evidence in the hearing record before the compensation judge that Eastlund expected to return to work for the employer or that she had been offered a job there again following her resignation. Finally, there was no expectation that Eastland would be compensated for her assistance to Heidi with the ATV.
The WCCA held that because Eastlund had resigned from her position and there was no ongoing employment relationship between her and the employer, no new offer of employment, no new contract for hire, and no payment for the services rendered on the date of injury, there was no evidence of any employment relationship at the time of the injury.
Arising Out Of & In the Course and Scope of Employment
Eastlund also argued that, even if she had resigned, her injury occurred in the course of employment because she had performed a service that furthered the interests of the employer at the time of injury. Specifically, her actions on the date of injury were “reasonably incidental to employment” because the act of moving the ATV was undertaken in good faith to advance the employer’s interests. The WCCA stated that Eastlund’s focus on whether she was advancing the interests of the employer was misplaced, because in the cases she relied on it was undisputed that the injured person was a current employee, and the issue in those cases was related to activities performed while off duty or outside of normal work hours. In this case, Eastlund was not a current employee and the employer had not directed her to perform the service, so the injury did not occur in the course of employment.
Practical Takeaways
The Eastlund case is a reminder that even basic questions about employment status may not be as straightforward as they at first seem. Depending on whether or not money was offered or whether the person making the request has authority to hire, a non-employee could be turned into an employee for the purposes of a workers’ compensation claim.
If you have questions about whether the injured party should be considered an employee, whether an injury arose out of or in the course and scope of employment, or other workers’ compensation matters, please reach out to me, or any of my colleagues here at Brown & Carlson.