Frequently, Minnesota police officers, firefighters, and corrections officers worry that they may not be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits arising out of his or her employment because the critical incidents pre-date October 1, 2013. Due to the nature of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), classifying PTSD as a specific injury with a specific “exposure” date may be illogical, especially in cases involving police officers who participate in many traumatic events during the course and scope of their employment. The law changed in Minnesota on October 1, 2013. PTSD is now compensable as a strictly mental-mental injury. The date of injury in these cases are particularly important because the date of injury determines what benefits are available to injured employees.

1. Minnesota Statute §176.011, subdivision 15, defines PTSD as an occupational disease

PTSD may also be considered an occupational disease. Therefore, the applicable date of injury is the date the employee became disabled or diagnosed, not a single specific traumatic exposure under Minn. Stat. §176.66, subd. 1. The employee’s entitlement to benefits is established by the law in effect on the date of disablement, not the law in effect on the last date of exposure. Stillson v. Peterson & Hede Co., 454 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 1990). As set forth in Criterion G of the DSM-5, the diagnostic tool used to diagnosis PTSD as required by Minnesota Statute 176.011, subdivision 15(d), in order for an employee even be diagnosed with PTSD, the employee must experience a later functional disturbance or impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of function. Many officers are exposed to traumatic events, but not all officers develop PTSD as they may not ever experience a functional impairment.

2. Minnesota Statute §176.011, subdivision 16, also allows PTSD to be defined as a Gillete type injury 

The date of injury in Gillete cases is the date of disablement and include ascertainable events that evidence the culmination of a disability, which include the date the employee initiated medical attention, date of a definite diagnosis, when the treating doctor determined the condition was work-related, and when the employee sought regular medical care. Schnurrer v. Hoerner-Waldorf, 345 N.W.2d 230 (Minn. 1984); Schaffer v. Minn. Orchestra, 53 W.C.D. 341 (1995); Reel v. Loftness Specialty Farm Equipment, slip op. (W.C.C.A. February 3, 2004); Neff v. Supervalue, Inc., 71 W.C.D. 217 (W.C.C.A. 2011); Cramer v. United Parcel Services., 72 W.C.D. 519 (W.C.C.A. 2012). As set forth in Criterion A in the DSM-5, PTSD may develop from the exposure to one or more traumatic events. It is questionable whether a physician could even pinpoint to a degree of medical certainty which event accounts for what percentage of the employee’s overall PTSD; therefore, the date of disablement is the logical date of injury.

3. A date of injury before October 1, 2013 does not bar an employee’s claim for benefits arising out of his or her PTSD post October 1, 2013

Even if an employee developed PTSD before October 1, 2013, his PTSD prior to October 1, 2013 would constitute a pre-existing condition. If subsequent traumatic events were substantial contributing causes or factors to the worsening of the condition, then his condition after October 1, 2013 would be compensable.

If you or someone you know suffers from PTSD due to a work-related accident or traumatic incident, you should consult with an attorney experienced in this area of the law. At Meuser Law Office, P.A., we have represented many clients with PTSD, including police officers, firefighters, first responders and correctional officers. We understand this nuanced area of the law and work with our client to ensure you receive the full benefits you are entitled. Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a no-obligation consultation today. Don’t let the insurance company unfairly deny you benefits as a result of their misinterpretation of the law surrounding PTSD in Minnesota. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Minnesota’s disabled police officers and firefighters are often eligible for disability benefits – either duty or regular – through the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Plan. However, there are certain age and service limitations regulating who can apply for disability benefits. For PERA Duty Disability benefits, a member cannot apply for Duty Disability if that member is age 55 or older, and has 20 years or more of service credit. For PERA regular disability benefits, a member cannot apply for regular disability if that member is age 55 or older, and has 15 or more years of service credit.

At Meuser Law Office, P.A., it’s not uncommon to see disabled Minnesota police officers and firefighters who are ineligible for disability benefits by virtue of the age and service limitations. In those cases, instead of a disability benefit, typically those police officers or firefighters will take a PERA Police and Fire Plan Retirement benefit if they can no longer work in their position as the result of a work-related injury.

There are complicated rules that govern the interplay between Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits and public disability and retirement pension benefits. A recent law change has drastically changed the rules as to how PERA Police and Fire Plan Disability Benefits are coordinated with workers’ compensation permanent total disability wage loss benefits.

Historically, Minnesota workers’ compensation permanent total disability benefits were subject to offset based on a disabled employee’s receipt of “old age and survivors insurance benefits.” Minn. Stat. § 176.101, Subd. 4. The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals traditionally interpreted this statute to include public retirement pensions and benefits, including retirement benefits under the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA), the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS), and the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA).

What this meant in practice is that if an injured worker was deemed to be permanently and totally disabled within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and that individual received a public retirement benefit under TRA, MSRS, or PERA, after the first $25,000.00 in permanent total disability wage loss benefits were paid, the workers’ compensation insurer was allowed reduce the workers’ compensation payments dollar-for-dollar based on the employee’s retirement benefit. For example, if the permanent total disability workers’ compensation benefit was the monthly equivalent of $2,500.00 per month and that same injured worker received a retirement pension of $2,000.00 per month, the workers’ compensation insurer would only have to pay the difference between the two – or $500.00 per month. In effect, this shifted the financial burden of a work injury to back to a permanently disabled injured worker. In the context of police officers and firefighters receiving PERA Police and Fire Plan Retirement Benefits, it was not uncommon to see the workers’ compensation permanent total disability benefit completely wiped out after the offset was applied.

On August 13, 2014, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued two opinions which dramatically reversed how retirement benefits are treated in the Minnesota workers’ compensation system. Ekdahl v. Independent School District #213 addressed TRA retirement benefits, and a companion case – Hartwig v. Traverse Care Center – addressed PERA retirement benefits. In short, the Court concluded that the offset rules apply only to Social Security benefits, and not other forms of retirement benefits. Note that this major change in the law also only applies to retirement benefits – not disability benefits under TRA, PERA, or MSRS.

It is clear that subsequent to these cases, any injured worker who is deemed to be permanently totally disabled for purposes of workers’ compensation will not be subject to any offset based on the receipt of PERA retirement benefits. It remains unclear, however, whether the “old” offset rules or the “new” offset rules apply to cases involving injured workers who were deemed to be permanently totally disabled prior to the Court decisions in Ekdahl and Hartwig. Are these individuals entitled to have the offsets cease after the issuance of the Ekdahl and Hartwig decisions? Or, do they have a claim for an underpayment and recoupment of offsets that were deducted by the workers’ compensation insurer prior to the Ekdahl and Hartwig decisions? These are questions that have not yet been answered by the Courts.

What is clear is that if you are a retirement beneficiary and are receiving a retirement through PERA, and you are also receiving permanent total disability workers’ compensation benefits, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced Minnesota workers’ compensation attorney. You may be eligible for a higher weekly workers’ compensation benefit amount, or you may even be entitled to a substantial back payment of workers’ compensation benefits. If you are a retired Minnesota police officer or firefighter who is receiving PERA retirement benefits, and who is also receiving permanent total disability wage loss benefits from the workers’ compensation insurer, contact us today to find out if you are eligible for additional benefits.

Meuser Law Office, P.A., has successfully handled combined workers’ compensation and PERA Duty Disability claims on behalf of Minnesota’s injured firefighters and police officers for the last decade. When it comes to navigating the complicated rules between Minnesota PERA and workers’ compensation to ensure the best outcome on behalf of our police officer and firefighter clients, there is no law firm in the state that does a better job than Meuser Law Office, P.A. We can explain what rights you have and make recommendations to you in terms of how to best protect your rights to those benefits. The knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. can help make the process easier to navigate. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling 1-877-746-5680.

In addition to workers’ compensation and PERA disability benefits, Minnesota’s police officers and firefighters who suffer disabling injuries while performing inherently dangerous duties are also eligible for continued health insurance coverage.

Minnesota statute § 299A.465 requires that an employer of a police officer or firefighter who has been awarded PERA Duty Disability benefits continue to pay their share of the police officer or firefighter’s health insurance premiums until the officer or firefighter reaches age 65. If the officer or firefighter’s dependents had coverage through the employer at the time of the officer or fighter’s injury, the employer must also continue to pay its share of the insurance premiums for those dependents.

In plain English, that means that if you are a Minnesota police officer or firefighter, and you suffer a career-ending injury that was incurred while you were performing inherently dangerous duties, your employer has to continue to offer you the same health insurance and continue to pay their share of the premium, as though you remained on the payroll through age 65.

Although this statute seems pretty straight-forward, Meuser Law Office, P.A. has seen a huge increase in the frequency of litigation on these claims. Given the rising costs of health insurance, more and more employers are trying to deny these types of claims, and we are seeing more and more situations where it isn’t 100% clear how this statute should apply.

Here are a few of the situations the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. have seen recently and how the courts have been deciding these issues. Notably, we are seeing different courts arrive at different conclusions.

Employer Contested Case Hearings

After an officer or firefighter is awarded PERA Duty Disability benefits, an employer has the right to “appeal” that determination by requesting a Contested Case Hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings in front of a neutral Administrative Law Judge within 60 days of notice of PERA’s Duty Disability approval. Usually “appeals” in this context are based on an employer’s argument that the police officer or firefighter doesn’t meet the Duty Disability criteria for one reason or another. We have litigated several of these cases to a favorable conclusion in front of an Administrative Law Judge, and we have settled several other contested cases for a lump sum cash settlement. A Contested Case Hearing is like an informal trial, at which evidence and testimony will be submitted, and the Administrative Law Judge makes a decision as to whether the officer or firefighter is eligible for benefits. This is considered a final determination, and either side can appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Our office recently had an interesting case involving two employers. Arguably, the officer’s post-traumatic stress disorder was caused by his traumatic exposures at two different law enforcement agencies, and arguably, both are partially responsible for his health insurance coverage. One employer requested a Contested Case Hearing, and the other did not. The employer who did not request a Contested Case Hearing filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that he had waived his right to future health insurance coverage via Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 because he had signed an employment law release in exchange for a severance when he left that department. The Court disagreed. In fact, the Court held that employer had no right to even contest this officer’s eligibility health insurance coverage since it failed to request a Contested Case Hearing within the statutory time frame.

Suing an Employer in District Court

Even though Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 says that an employer has to request a Contested Case Hearing within 60 days of PERA’s notice of approval for Duty Disability benefits, often employers don’t do that. Instead, they admit that the disabled officer or firefighter meets the eligibility requirements for Duty Disability, but they argue that the disabled officer or firefighter is ineligible for Continued Health Insurance benefits for other reasons. Usually, these cases must then be sued out in district court. We have a couple cases currently pending in district court involving these issues, and we’ve been able to settle a few cases as well. Usually, the issues involved in cases in district court revolve around whether the disabled officer or firefighter is barred from health insurance because of a gap in coverage, because they were covered as a dependent on a spouse’s policy, or because they waived coverage in exchange for a cash benefit.

Cases Involving More Than One Employer

As mentioned, we now have a handful of cases involving multiple employers. Two cases involved post-traumatic stress disorder that was caused by an officer’s exposure to traumatic events at two different agencies, and a third case involved an officer who suffered a back injury that was re-injured with a different agency. In one of the post-traumatic stress disorder cases, notwithstanding both employers’ arguments to the contrary, the Administrative Law Judge held that even though Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 doesn’t explicitly address that situation, that a court may equitably apportion responsibility for continued health insurance coverage to two or more employers who may both be responsible for the officer’s underlying disabling condition. The second post-traumatic stress disorder case is still in litigation. On the case involving the back injury, even though two employers were both arguably responsible for the officer’s back injury, his most recent employer voluntarily agreed to pay his ongoing health insurance coverage.

Cash Incentive Insurance Waivers

With ever-rising health insurance costs, we are seeing litigation involving cash incentive waiver plans much more frequently because we are seeing more and more public employers offering such plans. Employers can offer a variety of different types of cash waiver plans, but the concept is that an officer or firefighter waives health insurance coverage through their public employer in exchange for a monthly, quarterly, or annual cash benefit. For example, an officer may have the option of waiving health insurance coverage through his employer, go on his spouse’s family plan as a dependent, and receive $250 per month from his employer as an incentive for waiving coverage. Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? Well, not necessarily. In almost every case we have seen with a cash waiver plan, the employer has argued that the officer or firefighter is ineligible for health insurance benefits. What if that officer or firefighter’s spouse loses his or her job and insurance? What if the officer or firefighter goes through a divorce or their spouse dies? What if the officer or firefighter’s spouse retires? Who pays for that officer or firefighter’s insurance?

At this point, it is unclear. We have had different results in different courts on this issue. There is a Court of Appeals case our office handled a few years ago which found that a disabled firefighter who was a dependent on his spouse’s insurance policy was eligible for Continued Health Insurance Benefits in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, even though he was not individually covered on the city’s health insurance plan.

We also recently had an Administrative Law case where the officer had elected to waive his coverage in exchange for cash benefit, and he was a dependent on his wife’s family policy. The employer argued that he gave up his right to benefits under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 because he accepted the cash benefit and waived coverage. The court disagreed, holding that the employer was required to continue to offer him coverage.

We currently have a case in District Court involving three officers/firefighters from the same employer that all elected the cash waiver plan offered by their employer. We expect that this case will go to the Minnesota Court of Appeals to hopefully definitively answer whether an employer is required to “continue” health insurance for a disabled officer or firefighter who waived coverage.

Occasionally run into other types of cases involving disputes over exactly what benefits are provided by Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, including a case involving a cash incentive for waiver of family coverage, cases involving HSA contributions, and cases involving reimbursement for COBRA coverage.

This is a very complex and evolving area of law. If you are a Minnesota police officer or firefighter with questions about your rights under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, we are happy to help.

There are a variety of benefits available for Minnesota’s disabled police officers and firefighters, including, but not limited to, workers’ compensation benefits, PERA disability benefits, Continuation of Health Insurance benefits, and third-party liability claims. Contact the knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. to learn more about your rights. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

The general rules is, you will not be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits if you were commuting to or from work at the time you were injured; however, there are a few exceptions to this rule.

In Minnesota, the general rule is that workers’ compensation benefits are available to employees who sustain injuries “while engaged in, on, or about the premises where the employee’s services require the employee’s presence as a part of that service at the time of the injury and during the hours of that service.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16.

One exception to what is often referred to as the “coming and going” rule is the responsibility of the employer to provide its employees with a safe ingress to or egress from the employment premises. To fall within this exception, an employee must show that the injured occurred within the following criteria:

1)Before or after the workday
2)On an area that is considered a party of the employer’s premises
3)Within a customary route of ingress and egress

For example, if an employee falls, and is injured due to snow and ice the employer’s parking lot a few minutes after clocking out, this injury would likely be compensable. If the same injury occurred on the state-owned sidewalk in front of the employer’s premises, this injury would likely not be compensable.

One other factor that courts take into consideration is whether the employee was “engaged in activity reasonably incidental to her employment” at the time of the injury. For example, if a bartender clocks out but chooses to “hang out” at the bar, have drinks and socialize for an hour before leaving and sustaining an injury in the employer’s parking lot, this would not be a compensable injury because the employee was no longer engaged in an activity reasonably incidental to his or her employment.

The second exception to the “coming and going” rule is employer-furnished transportation. When the employer regularly furnishes transportation to employees to and from the place of employment, and the employee is injured during transport, the employee’s injury is compensable under Minnesota workers’ compensation laws.

The third exception to the “coming and going” rule is travel between two work places. One of these work sites could be the employee’s home if a portion of the employee’s work is performed at home. Therefore, situations may arise in which an injury that occurs during the trip between the employee’s home and his employer’s premises falls within the scope of workers’ compensation coverage. The most important factor when analyzing this exception is whether the employee’s conduct at the time he or she sustained an injury was connected with the demands or obligations of his or her employment.

Lastly, if the employment requires travel, injuries sustained by the employee may be compensable if the injury occurs in the course of a business trip. The portion of this exception that is often the subject litigation is: “What does it mean to be in the course of a business trip?” To prove an employee was in the course of a business trip, the employee must show that the trip furthered the employer’s interest, the employee received complete or partial reimbursement for travel expenses or the employee received wages for the time spent traveling. However, if the employee deviates from the employer’s business during the course of the trip and engages in a “personal mission,” workers’ compensation benefits can be denied. An example of a personal mission is visiting a romantic partner or watching the football game at a bar for recreational purposes.

Don’t wait to get an attorney involved if you have a Minnesota workers’ compensation claim. As this article illustrates, this area of the law is nuanced and complex. The attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. will help ensure that you receive all the benefits to which you’re entitled. Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free no-obligation consultation and claim evaluation. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

In Minnesota under the Workers’ Compensation Act the legislature recognizes numerous types of work injuries including specific injuries, Gillette injuries, occupational diseases, and consequential injuries. The case Gillette v. Harold, Inc. established that injuries caused by repetitive minute trauma brought about by the performance of ordinary job duties is compensable under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. (257 Minn. 313 (1960).) These types of injuries may be thought of generally as “wear and tear” injuries or repetitive motion injuries that are cumulative in a larger injury.

At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we frequently see law enforcement officers with Gillette low back injuries. While conducting patrol, police officers and deputy sheriffs wear duty belts that press up against his or her low back during a shift. The duty belt may weigh anywhere from 15 – 20 pounds and make handgun, handcuffs, flashlights, gloves, baton, radio, pepper spray, among other tools instantly accessible to officers. Additionally, officers may also have to wear a protective vest that puts additional strain on his or her back. Studies have shown that the equipment’s weight, the placement against the officer’s body, and the force exerted on the equipment when the officer is seated inside his or her squad car factor the amount of pain an officer suffers from wearing a duty belt.* Police officers and deputy sheriffs wear these heavy belts when entering and exiting squad cars, arresting or chasing non-compliant suspects, and when lifting patients into emergency vehicles. Officers conducting patrol duties in squad cars also face additional strain and pressure on his or her low back.

Over time, the everyday wear and tear on an officer’s low back due to his or her duty belt coupled with an officer’s normal job duties can cause serious disc issues in the officer’s lumbar spine. If the discs are damaged and further deteriorate, surgical intervention may be required in the future. If you are experiencing low back pain which you believe may be work-related, it is imperative you seek medical attention immediately and report your possible injury to your employer.

If the duty belt exacerbates an underlying non-work related injury, you may still have a compensable work injury. The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act does not require that the work-related injury be the sole cause of a disabling condition. The law only requires that the work injury be a substantial contributing cause or fact to the employee’s condition. Swanson v. Medtronics, 443 N.W.2d 534 (1989).  An injury is compensable when an injury aggravates or accelerates a pre-existing condition. Wallace v. Hanson Silo Co., 235 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 1975). So, while an officer may have had a prior low back injury from a motor vehicle collision, if the duties such as wearing a duty belt, entering and existing a squad car, among other patrol duties substantially aggravates or accelerates disc degeneration in his or her lumbar spine, then the injury may be compensable. In order to determine if the new injury is compensable the judge will consider:

•The nature and severity of the pre-existing condition and the extent of restrictions and disability resulting there from
•The nature of the symptoms and extent of medical treatment prior to the aggravating incident
•The nature and severity of the aggravating incident and the extent of the restrictions and disability resulting there from
•The nature of the symptoms and the extent of medical treatment following the aggravating incident
•The nature and extent of the employee’s work duties and non-work activities during the relevant period
•Medical opinions on the issue. McClellan v. Up North Plastics, slip. op. (W.C.C.A. October 18, 1994)

If you are a Minnesota police officer with a low back injury you believe was incurred from work duties, contact the experienced attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. immediately for a free, no-obligation case review. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we have represented hundreds of police officers with low back injuries and have successfully been awarded PERA Duty Disability benefits, Health Care Continuation benefits under Minnesota Statute 299A.465, and workers’ compensation wage loss benefits and medical treatment. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

* Ergonomics and Safety in Law Enforcement, by Fabrice Czarnecki and Ira Janowitz, 2003.
https://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Czarnecki/ergonomics_and_safety_in_law_enforcement.htm

There are several important deadlines that Minnesota police officers and firefighters need to be aware of when filing a PERA disability benefits claim, including the 18-month post-termination filing deadline.

Applications for Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Plan Duty or Regular Disability Benefits MUST be filed within 18 months after the person’s termination from public service. If an application is not filed within 18 months, an otherwise eligible disabled police officer or firefighter is barred from filing for PERA disability benefits. Missing this deadline can cost a disabled police officer or firefighter hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We have seen this issue come up several times. If a disabled police officer or firefighter has missed the 18-month deadline, no matter how strong his or her claim for PERA Duty Disability benefits and no matter how much we want to help, there is nothing the attorney can do.

Unfortunately, the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. see this issue come up occasionally. For example:

• An attorney in our office was contacted by a police officer who was involved in an on-duty shooting incident. The officer developed some mental health issues as a result and went on a medical leave for a short period of time. At the officer’s request, the officer’s doctor cleared her to return to full duty, even though she was still having mental health issues. After a short time back on the job, she realized things weren’t going well and she knew she couldn’t continue. She resigned from her job and didn’t pursue anything even though she was suffering from serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the on-duty shooting incident. Thankfully, a former colleague of hers suggested she call Meuser Law Office, P.A. to see if she was eligible for any benefits. We got her application in just shy of the 18-month deadline, and this officer was awarded PERA Duty Disability benefits, 299A.465 Continuation of Health Insurance benefits, and workers’ compensation benefits. 

• An officer contacted us to evaluate his potential PERA Duty Disability claim. He was referred to Meuser Law Office, P.A. by his workers’ compensation lawyer, having just settled his workers’ compensation claim. This Minnesota police officer had suffered a low back injury while wrestling with a suspect which required surgery. After his physical restrictions due to his low back injury were deemed permanent, his employer terminated him based on his inability to perform his full duty job. Over the next two years, he collected various workers’ compensation benefits, and his work comp lawyer ultimately settled his workers’ compensation case. Unfortunately, his workers’ compensation lawyer also instructed him not to file for PERA Duty Disability benefits during that time. By the time he met with an attorney in our office, his PERA claim was barred because he had failed to file within 18 months of his termination. There was nothing that we could do to help him. Because this officer’s workers’ compensation lawyer didn’t know the rules associated with PERA, he gave the officer bad advice that cost him several hundred thousand dollars.

• An attorney in our office met with a Minnesota police officer who had terminated from his employment over two years prior to our meeting. He had resigned as a police officer when he started to struggle with some mental health issues. Unfortunately, he didn’t seek help for his symptoms and he wasn’t diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder until more than two years after he terminated. Because he didn’t seek help and tried to manage it on his own, this officer didn’t even know he had PTSD until two years after he resigned. This gentleman didn’t receive a diagnosis until after the 18-month deadline had passed, but currently PERA does not have an exception for latent conditions that are not diagnosed until much later in time, such as cancer or post-traumatic stress disorder.

For Minnesota’s police officers and firefighters who suffer significant on-duty injuries, it is imperative to have the right lawyer from the beginning. At Meuser Law Office, P.A., the first time we meet with a client, our knowledgeable and experienced attorneys evaluate every potential claim, including but not limited to, Minnesota workers’ compensation, PERA/MSRS disability, Continuation of Health Insurance claims, and third-party claims. Our attorneys develop a timeline and a plan to ensure every possible resource for benefits is explored, which includes the coordination of claims every step of the way. Experience matters. For a free, no-obligation consultation, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

In the state of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth maintain mounted patrol units. The Minnesota Sheriff’s Mounted Posse Association (MSMPA) is comprised of volunteer and reserve units of mounted deputy sheriffs across the state who assist the County Sheriff whenever appropriate. Mounted patrol units help with crowd control, crime control, search and rescue, and community outreach. It is estimated that one mounted police officer has the effect of ten officers on foot. Horses provide size, weight, and every officer is 10 feet tall on horseback, enhancing visibility. Mounted police officers can travel quickly to places that squad cars cannot travel.

Unfortunately, while performing crowd control duties on horseback can increase safety for officers and the public, horseback riding is still a dangerous activity. Although the horses used in mounted patrol units are chosen for their temperament and suitability for the job, horses are still animals who can react unpredictably in unknown situations. Even the sweetest most docile horse can trip, fall to the ground and inadvertently crush a rider.

To ensure safety, officers should follow certain precautions:

• Safety equipment. Wearing a helmet can prevent very serious head injuries. There’s no excuse for not wearing a helmet while riding.
• Wearing a helmet when working with horses while on the ground is also important. Loading and unloading horses into a trailer can be a very dangerous situation. While horses in the mounted patrol unit may be loaded and un-loaded multiple times a week, working with a 1,100-pound animal in a small space is hazardous. Turning out a horse at night back into the herd can also be dangerous. Some horses like other horses better than others and if you turn out into a group of horses standing near the gate and another horse bites the horse you are working with he may kick out and may even hurt you.
• Wearing a helmet while walking out to the pasture to catch a horse is also a smart precautionary measure. Sometimes horses may gather around you and get pushy, hoping the human has a treat or looking for attention. A horse could nip another horse and then someone could kick out or knock you down out in the field. Horses can strike out with their front or back hooves.
• Wear proper footwear around horses. Getting stepped on in boots versus flip flops is an entirely different experience.
• Don’t stand directly behind a horse. Talk to the horse when you are working with him or her to let the horse know where you are standing and to prevent startling the horse.
• Don’t loop a lead line, reins, or lunge lines around your hands. If the horse runs away you could become caught and dragged.
• Properly lead a horse into its stall. When returning a horse to its stall don’t just unclip the lead line from his halter, lead the animal into the stall, walk around the stall, turn him to face the stall door and then back out. This prevents you from getting crushed or kicked in a confined space.
• Tack and groom in the same way each time. This creates a pattern so it is less likely a crucial step is forgotten. Check and re-check girth tightness before you mount. Girths should be tightened slowly and each time the horse should be walked around before moving up an additional hole.

If you sustain an injury, even one which may seem minor at the time, it is important to report the injury to your supervisor. Waiting a few days after what seemed to be a sprain or strain and then reporting the injury may give the workers’ compensation insurance carrier an excuse to deny your claim.

Contact an attorney early in the process. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we field calls from many police officers and deputy sheriffs injured in the line of duty who may just need a few questions answered. Call us today at 877-746-5680 for a free no-obligation consultation with an experienced Minnesota personal injury, PERA disability, and workers’ compensation attorney.

For more information on mounted patrol units in Minnesota check out the following websites:

• MSMPA www.mnmountedposseassn.com/home.html
• St. Paul www.stpaulmountedpolice.org/index.htm
• Minneapolis www.minneapolismountedpolicefoundation.org/home.html
• Duluth www.facebook.com/DPDMOUNTEDPATROL

Can I choose my treating physician?

Yes, you have the right to choose your treating health care provider. But, you must choose wisely because once you choose a treating physician, it becomes difficult to switch. As such, you also have to be careful about continuing treatment with the employer-recommended physician. The employer’s physician will be deemed to have been “selected” by you as your primary treating physician if you continue to treat with him or her.

Who may provide my treatment?

The Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) covers medical treatment for an employee injured within the course and scope of employment at a “health care provider.” A health care provider is defined as “a physician, podiatrist, chiropractor, dentist, optometrist, osteopath, psychologist, psychiatric social worker or any other person who furnishes a medical or health service to an employee.” Minn. Stat. 176.135, subd. 2(a). The WCA covers treatment with out of state medical providers but the fees paid are dictated by the workers’ compensation fee schedule. Practically speaking, this means that many out of state providers will be paid less for treating Minnesota workers’ compensation claims and they may not want to provide them with services as a result.

Can I change my treating physician?

After you’ve chosen or selected your treating physician and you’ve treated with this physician on two or more occasions, this physician is deemed your primary treating physician. This means that you have to provide a reasonable basis for a change of treating physicians if you don’t switch to a new physician within the first 60 days of treatment.

The case law is clear that you cannot change your primary treating physician for purposes of litigation—e.g., your doctor refuses to write a supportive narrative report or issue work restrictions. You can, however, change treating physicians if you lose confidence in your doctor. But, this loss of confidence must be supported by actual facts, and not the mere statement that you’ve lost confidence in your doctor. For example, you could indicate that you have lost faith in your doctor’s skill, you could point out that your condition has not improved under your doctor’s care, or you could indicate that there has been a breakdown in communication between you and your doctor. If you have evidence to support any of these rationales, the court would likely approve a change of primary treating physician.

If you change primary treating physicians without prior authorization from your workers’ compensation insurer, the insurer is not liable for treatment rendered by the new primary health care provider unless a change is later approved by the insurer or the court. The court may approve an unauthorized change in treating physicians if the change was required due to an emergency, or if prior approval could not have reasonably been obtained from the insurer.

Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation case evaluation and consultation. If you have questions regarding your right to medical treatment, wage loss or permanency benefits, the knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. will take the time to understand the intricacies of your case before making recommendations about how to proceed. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Average response to Priority 1 calls is longest in the 5th Precinct

MICHELLE BRUCH / MBRUCH@SOUTHWESTJOURNAL.COM AUGUST 23, 2017 UPDATED: AUGUST 23, 2017 – 11:49 AM

Eight minutes after Justine Damond reported a woman’s distressed call for help, she called 911 a second time to make sure police had the right address. Officers arrived in 9 minutes, 41 seconds, according to an incident detail report. The response time landed close to the citywide average for Priority 1 calls in the second quarter of 2017, which is 9 minutes 47 seconds. In Southwest Minneapolis’ 5th Precinct, the average Priority 1 response is 10 minutes 22 seconds.

That average should be “closer to nine” minutes, said City Council Member Blong Yang, chair of the Public Safety, Civil Rights & Emergency Management Committee.

“And sometimes when these numbers go up, it typically tells us something about what’s happening in the Police Department,” Yang added.

The current response is on the high end of available response time data since 2003. Priority 1 response times hovered close to 8 minutes in 2003-04, rose to 9:44 in 2007, and declined to times near 8 minutes in 2009-12, according to city data. Average Priority 1 response times have fluctuated at 9 minutes and above since 2013, and landed just over 10 minutes in the third quarter of 2016.

Source: Minneapolis Police Department
Source: Minneapolis Police Department
Officials said staffing levels play a role in response time. Yang said the number of officers fluctuates and currently stands at 852, and police administration expects that number to swell to about 900 toward year-end. Officers numbered 875 at this time last year, he said.

Lt. Bob Kroll, president of the Minneapolis Police Officers Federation, said one could argue the current force is far too small for the growing city. The Minneapolis police force stood at 940 in the late 90s, he said.

“The population has grown and the size of the force has gone down,” he said.

Kroll said attrition and retirements are keeping the force short of its authorized strength. And some officers are leaving early in their careers to work in other cities, or are leaving policing entirely, he said.

“This job is just not how it used to be. We are so heavily scrutinized for everything you do and don’t do,” he said.

Public Information Officer Sgt. Catherine Michal said a minimum number of officers is always working on a given night. If the number on a shift dips too low, she said, police can use overtime to fill positions.

“The Police Department had a hefty share of overtime last year,” Council President Barb Johnson said. “They use it when it makes sense, and we’re used to that.”

Source: Minneapolis Police Department
Source: Minneapolis Police Department
North Minneapolis and Downtown precincts also supplement the summertime patrol with Metro Transit police and the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office.

Mayor Betsy Hodges has asked the new Police Chief Medaria Arradondo to weigh in on the forthcoming Police Department budget.

Factors that impact police response

Aside from staffing, police and city officials said several factors can impact police response time.

Michal said a major incident like a shooting can tie up officers at a scene for hours. Other officers might shift into the area to help answer calls, leaving behind precincts that become shorter-staffed. Johnson said at an August 2016 Public Safety, Civil Rights and Emergency Management Committee meeting that a single shooting can engulf five-seven squad cars to handle the scene and talk to witnesses.

Former Assistant Chief Kris Arneson told the Council committee last year that officer training also impacts response times, including recent training in crisis intervention, de-escalation, active shooter training for the Super Bowl and training through the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice.

Lower priority calls are also seeing slower response times, although that’s partly by design. Arneson said former Police Chief Janeé Harteau directed officers to spend more time with people on lower priority calls to provide a better level of service.

“More officers are on the beat, so they’re getting out of their cars,” Arneson told the Council committee last summer. “So on these Priority 2s and 3s, if they’re assigned a call, they have to get back to their car.”

Priority 1 calls involve an unstable scene with an imminent public safety threat or property loss or damage. Priority 2 calls have no immediate threat of harm, but a timely response is still desirable. Priority 3 calls involve situations that are stable.

Kroll said the extra foot beats come with a tradeoff, and this year’s focus on community policing comes at the expense of 911 call response.

Kroll also said he’s heard recent complaints that a new Computer Aided Dispatch system is making it difficult for officers to read and review calls en route, leading to delays.

Southwest response times

Following Damond’s 911 calls in July, some community members have questioned the speed of the police response.

“The fact that she needed to call twice is a concern,” said Caroline Palmer, public and legal affairs manager for the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

She said the incident made her wonder how quickly police can respond to violent crime in all parts of the city.

“It raises a lot of questions,” she said.

Council Members Johnson and Linea Palmisano said they occasionally hear concerns from Southwest Minneapolis residents about police response.

The 5th Precinct’s Priority 1 average response in the 2nd quarter of 2017 is 10:22, a full minute higher than this time in 2016. The precinct’s calls for service also increased during that period, with 7,736 calls in 2017 and 7,036 in 2016.

MPD Stats_Q2.2017_Final-page-006
Source: Minneapolis Police Department
By comparison, the average Priority 1 response is 9:31 in Downtown’s 1st Precinct, 9:23 in Northeast’s 2nd Precinct, 10:00 in South Minneapolis’ 3rd Precinct, and 9:40 in North Minneapolis’ 4th Precinct.

Kroll said the southern end of Southwest Minneapolis’ 5th Precinct historically sees lower police presence because other higher-crime areas in the precinct generate more 911 calls.

“I say that from having to work there many years ago. You spend the majority of your time up in the higher crime areas, you’re up near Franklin Avenue and Lake Street and … near 35W, you’re on Lyndale and Nicollet and Hennepin. When you get way out Southwest they just don’t have the numbers.”

Johnson said the 5th Precinct response is often a matter of geography, given the lakes and the concentration of calls farther north.

“The squad cars can be quite a distance away from the corners of the neighborhood,” she said.

If you have sustained an injury in the line of duty, you may be entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars-worth of benefits. There are several types of benefits available to Minnesota’s first responders who have been injured in the line of duty, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. It can be complicated to coordinate all the different types of benefits to ensure you are maximizing your financial recovery. Working with an attorney who is experienced in this area of the law is in your best interest.

Types of Benefits Available for Injured Peace Officers:

Workers’ Compensation:  Under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, injured police officers may be entitled to medical, vocational, and wage loss benefits. These benefits include, but are not limited to, temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, permanent total disability, permanent partial disability, vocational rehabilitation services, and retraining benefits. Wage loss benefits are based on the officer’s earnings 26 weeks before the date of injury, from all sources of employment. Many departments also add in injured on duty time to the work comp benefits or allow officers to add in a portion of stored sick or vacation time.

Covered medical treatments include but are not limited to: doctor appointments, chiropractic care, surgery, injections, massage therapy, physical therapy, mental health counseling, prescriptions, pain programs, and acupuncture. Medical care must be both reasonable and necessary for services to be covered. Injured employees are also entitled to medical mileage as well as the reimbursement of certain types of attorney fees.

PERA Duty Disability:  PERA Duty Disability Benefits entitle police officers injured in the line of duty who are no longer able to perform the normal duties of a police officer to 60% of the officer’s “high five” earnings, 60 consecutive months of the member’s highest wages, through age 55 or 5 years from the date of filing, whichever is longer. In order to qualify injured officers must have sustained an injury performing inherently dangerous duties specific to police officers. Additional requirements apply to police officers with injuries over two years old applying for Duty Disability benefits.

Healthcare Continuation under Minnesota Statute §299A.465:  After PERA awards an injured member Duty Disability Benefits or an officer who is over age 55 with over 20 years of service directly applies, an injured police officer is entitled to healthcare coverage through age 65 as if the officer remained with the department. If the officer had family coverage at the time of the injury, his or her family also retains healthcare coverage. Extrapolated over the course of the benefit, this benefit is frequently worth over $500,000. Similar requirements apply to police officers applying for Duty Disability benefits.

Personal Injury:  If police officers are injured in the line of duty due to the negligence of a third-party, such as a person resisting arrest or a negligent driver in a motor vehicle collision, injured officers may bring a civil claim against the negligent party and in motor vehicle cases, claims against under-insured and uninsured motorist insurance policies. These claims include monetary recovery for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, past and future wage loss, past and future medical treatment, and are in addition to PERA and work comp benefits. If the injuries are so severe that the officer is no longer able to return to work as police officer, he or she may be entitled to very significant sums in addition to PERA/MSRS disability benefits, healthcare continuation benefits, and Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits.

Here are a few more things you may not know:

• PTSD is covered under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. PERA and MSRS also recognize PTSD as a covered disability for Duty Disability benefits and healthcare continuation benefits under §299A.465.
• Work comp benefits and personal injury monies are non-taxable. PERA Duty Disability benefits are non-taxable until the age 55 or until the benefit converts to a regular retirement benefit.
• Unless there is a dispute, attorney fees are not charged in workers’ compensation cases. Attorney fees in personal injury and work comp cases are contingent. Unless we recover monies on your behalf we do not charge a fee.
• Strict time limits exist as to when injured officers may bring a workers’ compensation, personal injury, or PERA/MSRS disability claim.

Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation case evaluation and consultation. The knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. take the time with each client to help determine which benefits under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act you are entitled as well as discuss PERA Duty Disability benefits and Healthcare Continuation Benefits under Minnesota Statute §299A.465. Call us today at 877-746-5680.