A recent case handed down by the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals provides a stark reminder to employers and insurers of the benefits to settling and closing claims, even where an Employee has fully recovered and is released to work without restrictions shortly after the injury.
In Yzermans v. City of Shakopee Police Department, the Employee worked for the Shakopee Police Department as a full-time police officer with an average weekly wage of $1,457.90. The Employee injured her right shoulder on April 1, 2011 while engaged in defensive tactics training at work. She underwent shoulder surgery one month later, on May 3, 2011. By July 11, 2011, she was released to work without restrictions and reached maximum medical improvement as of August 1, 2011.
The Employee continued to work for the police department for seven years, without restrictions or accommodation, and without need for medical treatment. On June 15, 2018, the employee voluntarily resigned from the police department and emailed her coworkers stating she was retiring from law enforcement.
Following her retirement, the employee worked part time in the Fall of 2018 at an apple orchard where she began to notice numbness and pain in her right arm. She sought medical attention in November, 2018, when an MRI revealed a recurrent tear through the superior labrum along with tendinopathy to the infraspinatus and supraspinatus. The employee worked sporadically without restrictions through that winter.
On April 30, 2019, the employee underwent a second shoulder surgery with post-surgery physical therapy until October, 2019. She again had no work restrictions.
The employee was evaluated by an IME for the employer who opined that the second surgery and current condition was related to her 2011 injury. He also opined that her condition precluded her from returning to work as a police officer.
On June 6, 2024, the employee again received restrictions from her provider, which were the first restrictions she had received since the summer of 2011. A QRC conducted an initial consultation for rehabilitation services and found she was a qualified employee.
The plan was to provide a transferable skills analysis, employability analysis, and labor market survey should an area of retraining be identified.
On August 26, 2024, the employee was hired as a full-time first grade teacher earning $56,300 per year.
The employee filed a claim petition seeking various benefits, including wage loss. The compensation judge denied the wage loss and also denied the rehabilitation services because she was gainfully employed at the time as a school teacher. The employee appealed only the denial of rehab.
The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals reversed the judge’s decision, finding that the employee was a qualified employee because she could not return to work as a police officer. Although the employee had found substantial gainful employment as a full-time schoolteacher, she was working at wage loss.
The Court disagreed with the compensation judge that the wage differential was insubstantial and found that her job as a school teacher was therefore not “suitable gainful employment” within the meaning of the statute. Although the Court did not order the approval of a specific retraining plan (as one had not yet been formulated), this was left open to further litigation.
In this case, the employee was set to explore retraining more than 13 years after her injury. If she were to seek a degree involving multiple years of school, the employer could be liable to pay for her tuition, books, transportation, child care, and wage replacement for up to 156 weeks. These costs can easily exceed several hundred thousand dollars. Although an injury can seem innocuous at the beginning, it is wise to consult with an experienced defense attorney to determine whether future benefits can be closed to avoid this calamitous situation down the road.