Accepting an award of PERA Duty Disability Benefits does not prevent firefighters, police officers, deputy sheriffs, and corrections officers from receiving wage loss benefits, including temporary partial disability benefits under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act.

A member approved for PERA Duty Disability benefits must separate from his or her position covered under the applicable plan, Police and Fire or Corrections, before receiving benefits. Members are encouraged to work in a different capacity. PERA Duty Disability benefits are not the same as PERA permanent and total disability benefits, members may work and still receive work comp benefits, PERA benefits, and income from a new employer. When the member begins working with a new employer and earns less than from the previous city or county employment, he or she will be eligible for temporary partial disability benefits from Minnesota workers’ compensation.

Temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits are wage loss benefits available to injured workers under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act who are able to return to work, but at a reduced wage because of his or her work injury. TPD is available for a total of 225 weeks but no more than 450 weeks after the date of injury. TPD is paid out at a rate of 2/3 of the difference between what the employee was making at the time of the injury or average weekly wage and the reduced earnings. Like other work comp benefits, TPD benefits are non-taxable.

In order to receive TPD injured workers must:

(1) Suffer a work-related injury
(2) Experience a loss of earning capacity as a result of that injury
(3) Be able to work, subject to restrictions
(4) Experience an actual loss of earning capacity

It is well settled law that “[a]n injured worker is not forever bound to his employer in order to retain his entitlement to benefits.” Boutto v. U.S. Steel Corp., slip. Op., No. WC06-288 (W.C.C.A. July 18, 2007). This means that an injured employee does not have to continue to work for the date of injury employer as a prerequisite to receiving work comp benefits. Anything less would force injured workers to be at the mercy of the employer.

This is especially the case when injured workers leave the date of injury employer as a result of PERA awarding PERA Duty Disability benefits. “The fact that the employee accepted an early retirement incentive from his employer for reasons unrelated to his injury or that he remains physically able to perform his previous job is not relevant to the question of whether the employee’s actual loss of earning capacity is causally related to the work injury.” Id. “[I]t is well settled that termination from employment for reasons not connected to the work injury does not preclude an award of temporary partial disability benefits.” Id.

Employers and insurers hate having to pay employees wage loss benefits who separate due to his or her PERA Duty Disability and will look for any excuse to cut off the payment of such benefits. Attorneys may have to file claim petitions or send letters to demand payment.

Meuser Law Office, P.A. is one of the few workers’ compensation law firms in the state of Minnesota that also handles PERA and MSRS disability claims. We’ve successfully represented hundreds of State Patrol, police officers and firefighters throughout the state for both workers’ compensation and PERA/MSRS disability claims. Sitting down with us for a consultation to learn more about your potential claims is a lot like financial planning. 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.

July 29, 2017 – The slogan “to protect with courage and serve with compassion” is more than mere words painted on the side of Minneapolis squad cars.  It expresses a legitimate expectation of officers by the public they are sworn to serve. 

Whenever a police officer causes the death of any person, the public deserves to know whether the officer’s actions were appropriate.  Whether the officer acted appropriately is a question that can only be answered by conducting an investigation and then applying the evidence gathered against the established legal standards. 

Minnesota Statutes §609.066 authorize peace officers to use deadly force in the following circumstances:

(1) to protect the officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person who the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed a felony involving the use of deadly force or will cause death or great bodily harm if apprehension is delayed.

The U.S. Supreme Court also has established a standard for judging an officer’s use of force in Graham v. Connor: 

“Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including:

• The severity of the crime at issue,
• Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and;
• Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

(emphasis added)

The death of Justine Ruszczyk was a tragedy.  We do not know why Officer Noor used deadly force.  His use of force may prove to be justified or may be found to be not justified under these legal standards.  This commentary is not offered to answer the questions of why Ms. Ruszczyk died or what the consequences to Officer Noor ought to be, if any.  Instead, the purpose is to address the aftermath of this tragedy that has resulted in a torrent of opinions, beliefs and solutions to perceived problems that are horribly at odds with reality and demonstrate an ignorance of the law under which the actions of police officers are judged.  Worse, many such statements have come from Minneapolis’s elected officials who ought to know better.   

The Fallacy of Linking Critical Incidents.

City Council members Cam Gordon, Elizabeth Glidden and Lisa Bender issued a statement last week that included the following as evidence of the necessity for reform in the Minneapolis Police Department:

“Justine should not have been killed, just as Jamar Clark, Terrance Franklin, Philando Castile and so many others should not have been killed.

As stated above, the U.S. Supreme Court instructs that we must pay “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.”  Here are some of the facts and circumstances of each of these cases. 

Philando Castile.  Castile was shot by a St. Anthony police officer, not a Minneapolis officer, who was subsequently acquitted by a jury.  The suggestion that MPD must reform because of the actions of an officer who was hired, trained and supervised by a different agency strains the boundaries of rational thought.   

Terrance Franklin.  On May 10, 2013, Franklin led police on a 91 minute chase through Uptown on a Friday afternoon after a 911 caller identified him as the suspect in a burglary.  In the car with him were a woman and two young children.  After crashing into a squad car, Franklin fled on foot, broke into a house and hid in the basement.  Ignoring pleas by officers to surrender, he fought with five officers, grabbed an officer’s MP5 machine pistol and shot two officers before one officer was able to return fire.  Franklin’s DNA was found on the trigger of the MP5. 

Jamar Clark.  On November 15, 2015, paramedics called dispatch for assistance when Clark was interfering with their efforts to treat a woman.  When officers arrived, Clark was combative and, during the ensuing physical struggle, he grabbed an officer’s gun while both were on the ground.  The other officer shot Clark to save his partner.  At the time, Clark was awaiting trial on felony charges from four months earlier when he led officers on a high speed chase in a stolen car with passengers inside.  The chase ended when Clark crashed into a tree.  Clark refused to surrender in that incident as well. 

Justine Ruszczyk.  On July 15, 2017, Ruszczyk called 911 to report what she believed to be a sexual assault in progress.  After calling a second time, she approached officers and was shot while at the side of the squad car.  There is no evidence that Ruszczyk was engaged in any criminal activity on the evening she died or had done so in the past.   

The Council members apparently forgot about Raul Marquez-Heraldes who was killed by two Minneapolis police officers in April, 2016.  Perhaps it was because in that case, de-escalation efforts failed and Marquez-Heraldes nearly stabbed a man to death before officers had to shoot him to save the life of the stabbing victim.  Or more likely, they forgot because there were no protests, public outcry or media attention following the death of Marquez-Heraldes. 

Other than the simple fact that Ruszczyk, Marquez-Heraldes, Clark and Franklin were each shot by Minneapolis officers, the Ruszczyk case bears no relationship to the other three.  Any attempt to link the incidents or suggest that the only difference is the race of the decedents (or the race of the officers) demonstrates either a blatant ignorance of the facts or a deliberate intent to misrepresent them.  No person can legitimately pay “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case” and claim that the deaths of Ruszczyk, Marquez-Heraldes, Clark, and Franklin are evidence of a pattern of conduct by Minneapolis officers or that the treatment of Officer Noor by the MPD or the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis is racially motivated. 

Systemic Problem in MPD

Related to the suggestion that none of the recent shootings were justified (clearly the implication in saying that they “didn’t have to die”), in the last 10 days, several elected officials including Rep. Keith Ellison and Council Member Linea Palmisano have proclaimed that there is a “systemic problem” in the Minneapolis Police Department.  These words “systemic problem” have been repeated ad nauseam by commentators, protestors and the media in reference to the MPD. 

A “systemic problem” is defined as “a problem affecting an entire population as a group.”  To our knowledge, none of the people applying this term to the Minneapolis Police Department have provided any evidence supporting their conclusion that there is a problem affecting all 850 members of the Minneapolis Police Department.  If they have some, we ask that they produce it so we can join them in evaluating its reliability and consider the extent to which it supports a conclusion that changes in practices or personnel are necessary. 

To the contrary, the following is only some of the evidence showing that those who throw around this highly damaging and inflammatory term so loosely are detached from reality or deliberately misrepresenting it for the purposes of advancing their own political ambitions or agendas. 

1. In the last five years, Minneapolis police have killed 4 people:  Franklin (May, 2013); Clark (November, 2015); Marquez-Heraldes (April, 2016); and Ruszczyk (July, 2017). 

2. The Minneapolis Police Department has roughly 850 sworn personnel, of these about 470 are assigned to patrol duty. 

3. Each year, these 470 Minneapolis patrol officers are dispatched to respond to 125,000 calls for service.  They also engage in about 5 citizen contacts for every call they answer.  Thus, each year MPD patrol officers engage in about 625,000 citizen contacts (roughly 52,000 per month). 

3. MPD officers had more than 2.6 million citizen contacts during the 50 months between the time Franklin and Ruszczyk were killed.  Do four deaths out of 2.6 million contacts over more than 4 years really demonstrate a “systemic problem?” 

4. Before answering, include in your consideration the following data from the same 50-month period.  During that time, in Minneapolis there were: 

• 165 homicides
• 1,868 rapes
• 7,917 robberies
• 8,171 aggravated assaults
• 97,245 serious crimes (Part 1 Crimes as designated by the FBI)
• 132,501 arrests made by MPD officers
• 2,990 guns confiscated and taken off the streets by MPD officers

Yet, in the face of this violence and increased scrutiny on Minneapolis police officers, citizen complaints are down by 56% since 2013. 

This data shows not only that there is not a systemic problem in the MPD, but also that the men and women of the Minneapolis Police Department are well-trained and highly professional peace officers who safely resolve almost all of the situations into which they are asked to “protect with courage and serve with compassion.” 

Minneapolis police officers wish that “almost all” was 100% and that they never were placed in situations where they have to fire their weapons.  However, as these data show, the “systemic problem” lies in the level of violence in the City – not in the ranks of the people that are asked to combat it. 

Further, no matter how carefully selected, trained, evaluated and supervised; police officers, like all human beings, make mistakes.  Clearly, the consequences of mistakes by police officers can be deadly just as in many other professions.  Even if Ruszczyk’s death is ultimately found to have resulted from a mistake (the shooting deaths of Franklin, Clark and Marquez-Heraldes were found to be justified), mistakes by police officers must be analyzed and addressed in a reasonable context under applicable legal standards rather than by raw emotion and unfounded perceptions.  It is preposterous to think that a hospital administrator would be fired and all of the doctors condemned as part of a “systemic problem” if only four surgical procedures out of 2.6 million resulted a patient’s death (with just one caused by a doctor’s mistake).

The community rightly expects that a police officer should not use harmful force before first assessing the facts and evidence before them even though, as noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, they must do so in circumstances that are “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”  In conclusion we pose two questions for your consideration: 

1. Is it too much to ask that our elected officials (who, unlike officers, can take as much time as necessary and do so in the safety of their offices) likewise gather and assess the evidence before they cause harm by proclaiming that there are “systemic problems” in their own police department or that individuals in drastically different circumstances should not have died? 

2. If a person in or seeking elected office is unable or unwilling to do so, are they fit to serve the public? 

His interview begins at the 21:00 time mark.

https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/omnystudio.com/d/clips/4b5f9d6d-9214-48cb-8455-a73200038129/1a8e9d61-0d94-46d9-8c36-a78e00381184/02a1b136-4e5c-445d-b440-a7b90156e290/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=e2387e15-9d4f-4b4d-bd30-a78e00381189

The article “Police Federation President supports Arradondo for chief” and interview can be accessed here: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/07/24/police-union-president-reacts-to-new-chief-named

His interview begins around the 7:40 time mark.

https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/omnystudio.com/d/clips/4b5f9d6d-9214-48cb-8455-a73200038129/1c3da022-ec7e-4a7f-91dc-a78e00380a9d/2a7cb92e-83a3-4dbf-aab5-a7ba013cc5de/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=44fb8925-fb04-4712-903e-a78e00380aa1

________________________________________________________________

PERA Permanent and Total Disability vs PERA Duty Disability

PERA Duty Disability benefits and PERA Permanent Total Disability benefits entitle qualified members to 60% of the member’s average salary over his or her five highest-paid consecutive years of service, which is the equivalent to a retirement benefit based on 20 years of service. If members have in excess of 20 years of qualifying service he or she will receive an additional 3% for every year in excess of 20 years.

Police Officers and Firefighters injured in the line of duty face advantages and disadvantages when deciding to apply for PERA Permanent and Total Disability or PERA Duty Disability benefits.

(1) Requirements

PERA Permanent and Total Disability:  Members must demonstrate that they were disabled in the line of duty while performing inherently dangerous duties specific to the position covered by the plan and are unable to continue working in substantial gainful employment.

PERA Duty Disability:  Members must show that they were disabled in the line of duty while performing inherently dangerous duties specific to the position covered by the Police and Fire Plan. Members may be released to work in another capacity but are not able to fulfill all the normal duties of his or her date of injury position.

(2) Survivorship

PERA Permanent and Total Disability:  If the Duty Disability is total and permanent, the member is eligible for automatic survivor protection until age 55 or 5 years after the disability occurs, whichever is later. Survivor protection means should you die the spouse will receive a portion of the member’s disability pension for a set amount of time.

PERA Duty Disability:  If the member is approved for Duty Disability he or she may elect a survivorship option, such as single life, 50% or 100%. The monthly disability benefit is then reduced based on the option to pay for the elected survivorship option, which then functions like life insurance for the disabled member. When the Duty Disability converts to a retirement benefit, either in 5 years or at age 55, whichever is later, then the member may re-elect and change his or her survivorship option.

(3) Taxation

PERA Permanent and Total Disability:  The base 60% of the member’s five highest consecutive years of his or her salary remains non-taxable for life; however, the member’s benefits stemming from service in excess of 20 years is taxable.

PERA Duty Disability:  The base 60% of the member’s “high five” is non-taxable until the disability benefit converts to a retirement benefit. Benefits attributable to service in excess of 20 years is taxable, even when categorized as a disability benefit.

(4) Workers’ Compensation Offsets

PERA Permanent and Total Disability:  If PERA approves a member for permanent and total disability benefits, he or she remains in disability status for his or her lifetime and the benefit never converts to a retirement benefit.

If the member cannot work on a substantial gainful basis than he or she will not be eligible for temporary partial disability benefits in workers’ compensation benefits.

The member would likely be deemed “permanently totally disabled” in the workers’ compensation context as well. Permanent total disability benefits in work comp are completely offset by PERA disability benefits. Members frequently receive more in PERA disability benefits than they would be entitled to receive through work comp. Therefore, if members receive PERA permanent and total disability benefits they may not be entitled to any wage loss benefits from work comp.

PERA Duty Disability:  If PERA approves a member for Duty Disability benefits, then he or she is able to receive wage loss benefits from work comp in addition to his or her PERA benefits.

The member may receive work comp, PERA, and work in a different capacity. If he or she earns less money than the member did before the injury, then he or she may be entitled to temporary partial disability benefits. If these three sources of income are over 125% of the members “high five” income then the PERA benefit is reduced a dollar for every three dollars.

If the member is deemed “permanent and totally disabled” in the workers’ compensation context, then the member’s PERA Duty Disability benefits are offset until the PERA benefits convert to a retirement benefit.

If you are considering applying for PERA Duty Disability or PERA permanent and total disability benefits contactthe attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no obligation consultation. Each case is unique you may be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of dollars if you apply for the wrong benefit. Our knowledgeable attorneys will help you understand the often confusing PERA Duty Disability benefit law and ensure you receive the full benefits you are entitled to. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Meuser Law Office, P.A. has proudly and successfully represented hundreds of police officers and firefighters throughout the state of Minnesota for PERA disability and workers’ compensation claims for in-the-line-of-duty injuries.

Coordinating all the different types of benefits available to injured police officers and firefighters is complicated. It’s easy to make mistakes, and those mistakes can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. One of the most common mistakes we see is when an individual applies for the wrong type of PERA Police and Fire Plan Benefit.

In addition to retirement benefits, Minnesota police officers and firefighters who are disabled from performing their regular duties may be eligible for a variety of different types of disability benefits, including:

1. regular disability
2. duty disability
3. permanent and total regular disability
4. permanent and total duty disability. 

Duty Disability benefits are available for police officer and firefighters who have sustained an injury or illness that is expected to prevent the member from performing his or her normal duties for a period of at least one year, and whose injury or illness incurred during, or arose out of, the performance of inherently dangerous duties specific to police officers or firefighters. Duty Disability benefits are payable at a base rate of 60% of the police officer or firefighter’s high-five salary. These benefits are non-taxable for five years or through age 55, whichever is longer, and an award of PERA Duty Disability benefits also entitles a police officer or firefighter to Continuation of Health Insurance Benefits in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 299A.465.

Alternatively, regular disability benefits are available to police officers and firefighters who suffer from a physical or psychological condition expected to prevent the individual from performing his or her normal duties for at least a year, which does not result from an injury or illness sustained during the performance of inherently dangerous duties. Regular disability benefits are payable at a base rate of 45% of the high-five, and they are taxable.

Total and Permanent Duty and Regular Disability Benefits are available to members of the Police and Fire Plan who meet the criteria for duty or regular disability benefits, and who also demonstrate that they are expected to be disabled from performing any substantial gainful employment for a period of at least one year. Total and Permanent Disability Benefits – are payable at the same rate as duty and regular disability benefits. However, Total and Permanent Duty Disability benefits are non-taxable for life; and both Total and Permanent Duty and Regular Disability benefits provide for a no-cost automatic survivor option.

Applying for the wrong benefit can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. One of the biggest mistakes injured police officers and firefighters make is applying for retirement benefits when they may be eligible for Duty Disability benefits. Over the years, we’ve consulted with several individuals who took an early retirement, when, based on the circumstances of their illness or injury, it’s clear that they would have met the requirements for a Duty Disability. That mistake cost those retirees thousands of dollars in tax advantages, as well as employer-paid health insurance coverage, and unfortunately, if an individual has already retired – we can’t undo it. Talk to us first before you take a retirement benefit!

We’ve also seen people that have applied for Total and Permanent Disability Benefits when they should have applied for the non-Total and Permanent benefit. While the Total and Permanent Disability Benefits may seem like a better deal – most people cannot meet the higher burden of proving that they are incapable of any substantial gainful employment, meaning that many people are denied when they try to apply for this benefit.

In addition, if you are trying to prove that you cannot work in any capacity to meet the Total and Permanent Requirements, you may very well be decreasing the value of your workers’ compensation case. It seems counterintuitive, but due to the complex coordination rules between PERA disability benefits, and workers’ compensation, it can actually substantially decrease the overall value of all of your claims to argue that you’re incapable of working in any capacity.

To make things even more complicated, there was an important Minnesota Supreme Court case that came down about two years ago that changed some rules about coordination of workers’ compensation with PERA retirement benefits. Under this law, there are some cases – under very particular situations – where it is actually financially more beneficial to forego a disability benefit and to take a retirement benefit – even if it’s with an early retirement penalty.

Meuser Law Office, P.A. is the only law firm in the state with extensive experience handling workers’ compensation and PERA disability claims on behalf of police officers and firefighters. Due to the complicated coordination rules between PERA disability benefits and workers’ compensation benefits, it’s easy to make a mistake and accidentally cost yourself thousands and thousands of dollars. Talk to us before you apply to make sure you are applying for the benefit that will give you the best possible outcome!

The PERA lawyers at Meuser Law Office, P.A., handle PERA Police and Fire Plan disability claims at all stages of the process – from the beginning of the application phase all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. We strongly encourage any Minnesota police officer, firefighter, or corrections officer who is considering applying for PERA duty disability benefits to meet with us a for a consultation before beginning the application process. Experienced legal representation can help save you time and money in getting approved for the benefits you’re entitled to.

If you have a Minnesota Police and Fire Plan or Corrections Plan PERA Duty Disability claim, Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling 1-877-746-5680. Our knowledgeable attorneys will help you understand the often confusing PERA Duty Disability benefit law and ensure you receive the full benefits you are entitled to.

Ten years ago, many people had never heard of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Today most people associate PTSD with soldiers, who often suffer from the effects of PTSD from a single traumatic incident or exposure in the line of duty. What this means is when you ask a soldier the cause of his or her PTSD, they can usually point to a single incident or set of incidents that sparked the onset of their PTSD symptoms. This is not the case for Minnesota police officers. Many times, PTSD symptoms manifest over the course of time as a result of multiple traumatic experiences, and it is difficult to point to just one incident as the inciting event.

What Causes PTSD?

Many events can cause PTSD in police officers, such as shootings or “shots fired” calls, motor vehicle collisions involving fatalities or severe injuries, hostage situations, dangerous drug busts, domestic dispute calls, child abuse investigations, or any other situation that involves exposure to serious injury or death. There is no rhyme or reason for why one person develops PTSD and another does not. There is also no reason why one particular event “causes” PTSD while another, perhaps more traumatic event, does not. With police officers, PTSD many times occurs as a result of a build-up of events that arise throughout an officer’s career.

The Workers Compensation Act recognizes post-traumatic stress disorder as a compensable injury as of October 1, 2013 and defines PTSD by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V (DSM-V). The DSM-V specifically describes the types of incidents that are required for a PTSD diagnosis. These incidents include exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in on or more of the following ways:

1. Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s).
2. Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others.
3. Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family members or close friend.
4. Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s).

The DSM-V provides an example for #4 above, citing to first responders who collect human remains or police officers exposed to details of child abuse.

Other stressful situations may also contribute to an officer’s overall deterioration in mental health, including long hours, politics within the police department, not knowing what the next call will be or when it will come in, and handling the attitudes of others. In addition, officers are often times criticized and investigated for the decisions they have to make within a split second. While this likely contributes to an officer’s mental condition, factors such as these “work stress factors” are not events that lead to PTSD.

Signs and Symptoms of PTSD

There are many symptoms of PTSD. A common symptom witnessed in most of our Meuser Law Office, P.A. clients is their report of having irritable behavior or angry outbursts with little to no provocation. This makes sense since PTSD inhibits one’s ability to appropriately handle stress. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most stress you’ve ever had in your life and zero being no stress, a person with PTSD may rate going to the mall or grocery store at a 7 when a person without PTSD may rate it as a 1 or a 2.

Here are other signs and symptoms to watch for:

Irritability or frequent anger
Withdrawal from family and friends
Emotional outbursts
Suspicion or paranoia
Risk taking behaviors such as excessive drinking, drug use or risky sexual behaviors
Insomnia or difficulty falling asleep
Anxiety or panic feelings
Guilt
Nightmares
Panic attacks
Intrusive thoughts
Avoiding people or places
Easily distracted
Lack of concentration
Fatigue
Recurring thoughts
Flashbacks
Judgment errors
Sweating, trembling or shaking
Negative beliefs about yourself
Inability to feel positive emotions
Hypervigilance
Exaggerated startle response

It is important to remember that 10 – 30 percent of first responders will develop PTSD in the course of their career. These injuries can be just as serious and dangerous as physical injuries and should be taken seriously. Early intervention in the form of therapy and/or prescription medication is likely the single best thing you can do for a PTSD diagnosis. There is no one answer for everyone. What may work for one person in terms of treatment may not work for you. However, the faster you seek assistance for your post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, the greater the chance you have of making a rapid and full recovery.

Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, there are benefits available for Minnesota police officers and first responders who develop PTSD on the job. These benefits include wage loss, rehabilitation, and medical care and treatment. 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.