1. Am I entitled to rehabilitation benefits?

An employee is entitled to rehabilitation services, or the services of a QRC, if the employee is deemed a “qualified employee.” A qualified employee is:

• permanently precluded or is likely to be permanently precluded from engaging in the employee’s usual and customary occupation or from engaging in the job the employee held at the time of injury;
• cannot reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment with the date-of-injury employer; and
• can reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment through the provision of rehabilitation services, considering the treating physician’s opinion of the employee’s work ability.

Unfortunately, if your workers’ compensation claim is denied, the insurance company will not pay for rehabilitation services from a QRC. This means that you will need to contact an attorney who can file a rehabilitation request or a claim petition on your behalf to demand your entitlement to these benefits.

2. What is a QRC?

“QRC” stands for Qualified Rehabilitation Consultant. The role of QRC is to provide vocational and medical management services to injured workers with the goal of returning the injured worker to suitable, gainful employment. A QRC will attend your medical appointments and clarify your physical restrictions with your medical providers; communicate these restrictions to your employer, the insurance company and your attorney; and help you find a job within your physical restrictions and at a wage as close as possible to your pre-injury earnings. To help you return to work, a QRC will provide you with job leads and help you with job search, interview preparation and resume formation.

3. Can I change my QRC?

Yes—but there is a strict time frame in which you must make the switch to a new QRC. If you don’t have an attorney representing you, the QRC was likely assigned to you by the insurance adjuster. A QRC chosen by an insurance adjuster is ultimately going to be loyal to the insurance company and will be motivated to get you back to work as soon as possible, even if you are not physically ready to return.

Conversely, a QRC who is chosen by you (or your attorney) will be more of an advocate for you in the context of a workers’ compensation claim. A QRC that you choose will clarify your restrictions with your doctor and make sure that when you return to work, it is in a position that is physically suitable. They are not going to push you to return to work before you’re ready to do so.

Due to the importance of selecting your own QRC, I recommend that as soon as you are assigned a QRC, you speak with an attorney. An attorney can connect you with a QRC that their office uses frequently. You must make this switch within 60 days of being assigned a QRC. You are not required to provide any reason for the switch, you just have to inform the insurance company that you have elected to select your own QRC within the first 60 days.

4. How does my QRC get paid?

The workers’ compensation insurer is responsible for paying for the costs and services of a QRC. An injured worker does not bear the burden of these expenses. Many times, my clients are concerned that getting a QRC will cost them money and that is simply not the case.

5. Do I have to do a job search?

Yes, if you are receiving or claiming entitlement to ongoing wage loss benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, you must perform a diligent job search. This means that you must actively look for work and apply for jobs as long as you are released to return to work in some capacity. A QRC will make sure that you are performing a diligent job search and documenting that job search in a way that is accepted by the insurance company. Having a QRC on the file that knows what they are doing will protect you from any “diligent job search defense” that the insurance company may raise.

Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation case evaluation and consultation. The knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office 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, if applicable. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Attorneys Ron Meuser and Mary Beth Boyce obtained a successful jury verdict on behalf of their clients in Wright County. Ron and Mary Beth brought a civil claim on behalf of their client who was seriously injured while working as a deputy sheriff. The deputy sheriff was struck by another vehicle while performing law enforcement duties and suffered career ending injuries to the officer’s neck, back, head, and knee. The trial lasted 7 days and required over 9 experts to provide testimony. Meuser Law Office, P.A. successfully obtained a verdict that included monetary damages for wage loss, medical expenses, and pain and suffering in excess of $650,000.

Meuser Law Office, P.A. is one of the few workers’ compensation law firms in the state of Minnesota that also handles civil and PERA/MSRS disability claims. We’ve successfully represented hundreds of State Patrol, police officers and firefighters throughout the state for workers’ compensation, PERA/MSRS disability, and civil claims. Sit down with us for a free, confidential, no-obligation consultation to learn more about your potential claims. 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 by calling 1-877-746-5680.

Ronald F. Meuser, Jr., Attorney and Founder of Meuser Law Office, P.A. is proud to have been nominated and chosen for membership to The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100. The National Trial Lawyers is a professional organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from across the country who exemplify superior qualifications as civil plaintiff or criminal defense trial lawyers.

Nominated by their peers, prospective members are carefully screened prior to being invited to join the organization. The criteria for membership include board certification as a trial lawyer; reputation among peers, the judiciary and the public; and other requirements.

Ron is honored to be chosen as a top 100 lawyer in the Civil Plaintiff category for the state of Minnesota of this exclusive organization.

Meuser Law Office, P.A. is the law firm that Minnesota’s workers and police and fire personnel call when they have been seriously injured on the job and want the very best legal team on their side. With over 30 years combined experience practicing exclusively in the areas of workers’ compensation, PERA/MSRS disability, and personal injury; you can count on the knowledgeable attorneys at Meuser Law Office to make sure you receive all the benefits and compensation that you are entitled under the law.

Frequently, employers and insurers who are involved in Minnesota workers’ compensation cases do not understand that even if an employee separates from his or her date of injury employer, he or she is still entitled to rehabilitation services of a Qualified Rehabilitation Consultant (QRC). These rehabilitation services include job placement services. A QRC will help an injured worker return to work at a different job within his or her restrictions.

If an employer and insurer terminates rehabilitation services through a rehabilitation request and is refusing to provide job placement services, the injured worker should file a rehabilitation request. The issue must be certified as a dispute under Minnesota Statute § 176.081, subdivision 1 (c). After a mediator at the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) will determine whether a genuine dispute exists between the parties and the matter will be scheduled for a rehabilitation conference at DOLI.

As long as an employee remains a qualified employee under Minnesota Administrative Rules part 5220.0100 subpart 22, an employee is entitled to rehabilitation services, including job placement services. In order to be a qualified employee, the employee must be:

(a) permanently precluded or likely to be permanently precluded from his or her usual occupation or job he or she held at the time of the injury;
(b) cannot reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment with the date of injury employer; and
(c) can reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment with rehabilitation services.

By definition if PERA has awarded a Minnesota police officer, firefighter, first responder, or deputy sheriff Duty Disability benefits, he or she is a qualified employee. In order to receive PERA Duty Disability benefits, two doctors must opine that the worker’s disability prevents him or her from working as a police officer or firefighter for at least one year.

Once PERA awards an employee Duty Disability benefits he or she must separate from the county or city. If the police officer or firefighter is working light duty, he or she must separate within 45 days. The injured worker may return to work in a different capacity but he or she cannot work in a position covered by the PERA Police and Fire Plan.

Members who qualify for PERA Duty Disability benefits are actually incentivized to find employment in a non-police and fire plan position. If he or she is not working, the injured worker’s wages are capped at 100% of his or her “high five” between PERA benefits and workers’ compensation wage loss benefits. But if he or she is able to work elsewhere, the member’s wages are capped at 125% among PERA, work comp, and the new job. After the member’s wage reaches 125% then the PERA benefits are reduced a dollar for every three dollars.

Accepting PERA Duty Disability benefits do not signify that the employee is withdrawing from the labor market. The injured worker merely cannot work in the same capacity in which he or she worked before the injury and disabling condition. Injured workers should complete and track his or her job search in order to demonstrate a desire to return to work.

In the Minnesota workers’ compensation case, Erickson v. City of St. Paul, the employee resigned from his employer, who was accommodating his restrictions, in order to accept PERA benefits. (slip. op. (W.C.C.A. April 16, 2007)). The employer and insurer argued because he voluntarily resigned he was not qualified for rehabilitation services, specifically retraining benefits. The court noted that the employee qualified for PERA benefits because of his disability, not because he restricted and that whether an employee is “employed, voluntarily terminates his employment, retires, or relocates does not terminate his or her entitlement to rehabilitation services.”

If an employee does not resign from the position covered by the PERA police and fire plan, he or she will lose entitlement to non-taxable income, 60% of his or her “high five,” health insurance benefits, and survivor benefits. Refusing a job offer does not cut off rehabilitation services nor does being fired for misconduct. Hugill v. Benton County, 64 WCD 220 (2004); Conklin v. Becker County Dev. Achievement Ctr., Slip op., No. WC 10-210 (WCCA Apr. 28, 2011). The court noted in Boutto v. U.S. Steel Corp. that an employee’s decision to accept the employer’s retirement incentive package should not place him in a worse position than someone discharged for misconduct. (July 18, 2007 WC06-288.)

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. If your employer or insurer has denied rehabilitation services, contact an attorney at Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation consultation. Our knowledgeable attorneys handle Minnesota workers’ compensation cases on a daily basis and are very familiar with the most current laws to determine what you are eligible for. We will ensure you receive the full benefits you are entitled. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

1. Arrive on the correct date and time. Wandering in late does not endear you to the attorneys and plants a healthy fear in us as well as a hope in the defense counsel that you will decide not to show up on time for court hearings.

2. Dress appropriately. You don’t need to wear a suit or a dress, but clothing with holes or club attire is not acceptable.

3. Do not drink or use mood or mind-altering substances before the deposition. This includes going out the night before. If I can smell what you drank the night before, opposing counsel can too. Similarly, if you testify that you do not nor have you ever used tobacco products, yet my eyes are watering from the cloud of smoke around you, this incongruence is not helpful for your case.

4. Don’t be surprised if the defense attorney has searched your name in Google or looked through your social media accounts.

5. Get some sleep the night before. You may be nervous but as long as you tell the truth it’s very unlikely you are going to hurt your case.

6. Try not to talk excessively. Answer the defense attorney’s question directly and succinctly. If he or she wants more information they will ask for it. Volunteering additional information makes a long process longer and can even hurt your case.

7. If you aren’t released to drive by your doctors, don’t drive yourself to the deposition. Have someone else take you.

8. If you need to take breaks, walk around, or even stand while testifying you can do so! This isn’t court, nor is the purpose to make your injury worse or humiliate you.

9. You can bring a spouse or a family member but they are not allowed to talk! Remind them before they walk in, while they may want to help you and you appreciate their support, they will hurt your case if they jump in and try to answer your questions, this includes looking to them for confirmation during the questions.

10. During breaks, you may not be “on the record” but you’re still being observed. Part of the purpose of a deposition if for the defense attorney to evaluate your likeableness to a judge or a jury. The attorney evaluates characteristics that may be difficult to ascertain from medical records. Be mindful of this and as such be polite and professional. You aren’t their friend but you should still be respectful.

11. Avoid coarse or foul language. If you have to be blunt that is understandable, but using inappropriate language in front of a judge is not a good idea.

12. It’s OK if you don’t know an answer. Don’t make up an answer because you think you should know or assume you are expected to know. If you don’t know exact dates, use approximations such as I believe it was in the fall, two years ago.

13. If you don’t understand the question, request the attorney to repeat or rephrase it. He or she is generally not trying to trick you or make you feel stupid. It can be difficult to ask a series of questions and sometimes the questions may get formulated awkwardly.

14. Turn your phone off. This practice is simply polite. Attorneys forget too and judges are happy to remind them.

15. Plan for approximately 2 hours.

16. Make sure you speak audibly. Don’t make the court reporter’s job any harder than it already is.

17. Remember that you have to speak aloud. If you nod or shake your head, the court reporter can’t record that movement. The same goes for pointing to body parts that cause your pain or describing objects that may have contributed to your injury.

If you or someone you know has suffered from a work injury, contact the experienced attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. to explain your rights under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, PERA, MSRS, or civil law. We will work to inform you of your rights and maximize your benefits under the law. Contact us today for a free confidential, no-obligation case consultation at 1-877-746-5680.

If you are a police officer or firefighter injured in the line of duty, you and your family may be entitled to health insurance coverage through your employer through the age of 65. The legislature through Minnesota Statutes § 299A.465 sets forth that if a police officer or firefighter cannot perform the normal duties of the position for at least twelve months due to an injury that was the result of the performance of inherently dangerous duties specific to police or firework, the police officer or firefighter is entitled to continued health insurance benefits. This eligibility standard is identical to the PERA Duty Disability eligibility standard, and is a huge financial benefit to police officers and firefighters injured in the line of duty.

Employers have resisted paying for § 299A.465 health insurance claims in many cases, citing reasons ranging from the member’s injury was not work related or serious enough to qualify for benefits to technical arguments relating to PERA’s initial review process. An argument that has been made frequently by employers in denying health insurance coverage is what I refer to as the “continuation” argument. This argument is essentially, if the member was not enrolled in health insurance at the time he or she separated from service, the member is not entitled to ongoing health insurance coverage. The employer is treating a member’s receipt of health insurance coverage as a prerequisite to providing § 299A.465 health insurance coverage.

In a case that I tried in district court last year, the employer denied three first responders § 299A.465 health insurance coverage on the basis that they were each receiving a cash stipend, in lieu of actual health insurance coverage, at the time they were disabled and separated from service. The employer argued in its motion for summary judgment that it was not responsible for Continuation of Health Insurance Coverage benefits in accordance with the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 because the first responders were not covered under the Employer’s group health plan at the time of their separation from employment.

As was the case here, many employers offer their employees a cash incentive to waive insurance coverage because it saves the employer money. These plans are also beneficial to employees who have health insurance elsewhere (e.g., through a spouse) because they would otherwise be double covered and paying for unnecessary health insurance. The tricky part is when there is an injury on the job, and the police officer or firefighter is no longer able to work in their field, employers will take the position that they are not entitled to § 299A.465 health insurance coverage because of their insurance status.

Minnesota Statutes § 299A.465 provides, in relevant part, that for a peace officer or firefighter who has been determined by the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) to be eligible for Duty Disability benefits, “the officer’s or firefighter’s employer shall continue to provide health coverage for: (1) the officer and firefighter; and the officer’s or firefighter’s dependents if the officer was receiving dependent coverage at the time of the injury under the employer’s group plan.” Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 (1)(c)(1), (2) (emphasis added). The Employer argued at a summary judgment motion hearing, that based upon these provisions, that the employer can only continue the health coverage under the employer’s group health plan if the employee was an insured under the employer’s group health plan. I argued based upon my own motion for summary judgment, that the Employer’s argument failed to consider the plain language of the statute, which does not refer to any prerequisite for the police officer or firefighter to receive continued health care coverage. I further argued that while it was arguable that the employee must have had his or her dependents on his or her coverage at the time of the disablement in order to continue this dependent coverage, the plain language of the statute omits any such language when referring to the actual police officer or firefighter him or herself. The legislature could have added the same modifying language to the portion of the statute referring to police officers and firefighters just as it had for their dependents—but, the legislature chose not to limit this coverage. This therefore was reflective of the legislature’s intent to provide health insurance coverage to police officers and firefighters, regardless of their insured status at the time of their disablement or separation.

I also argued that the policy rationales underlying Minnesota Statutes § 299A.465 supported my reading of the law. For example, I told the judge that a decision in favor of the Employer would force Minnesota’s married police officers and firefighters to always elect family coverage with their public employers, or to carry two separate policies—one individual and one family policy, or risk losing the protections afforded by Minn. Stat. § 299A.465—often at greater cost to both the officer and his or her family and their respective employers. Furthermore, I argued that if the Court were to accept the Employer’s arguments and enter summary judgment in its favor, there would be unfortunate consequences in which the insurability of a police officer or firefighter would depend on his or her spouses’ employability, among other possibilities, such as death, divorce or significant financial change.

The District Court Judge agreed with my arguments and issued summary judgment in favor of my clients, two local firefighters and one local police officer. The Judge determined that the Employer must offer health insurance coverage to all three “retired” service members until the age of 65. This was a big win for Meuser Law Office, P.A. because it is very rare for a judge to issue summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff. In addition, this case has influenced other employers to voluntarily pay § 299A.465 health insurance coverage and not argue that enrollment in coverage is a prerequisite.

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 1-877-746-5680.

In certain circumstances when you are injured during the course and scope of your employment you may be able to bring a civil claim against the third-party, other than your employer, who is ultimately responsible for your injuries. When pursuing a claim against a third-party or a “tortfeasor” the parties must also consider that workers’ compensation insurance carrier also has a claim against the responsible negligent party. In these situations, it’s often expedient to work together with the workers’ compensation carrier to maximize your total recovery from all the different sources, whether they be Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits, PERA/MSRS Duty Disability benefits, or civil proceeds. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Minnesota Statute §176.061 specifically provides for a statutory subrogation right for reimbursement for employers and insurers who pay benefits to and on behalf of injured employees against an at-fault third-party. Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Bjelland, 710 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 2006). What that statute means is that by law the workers’ compensation carrier has a course of action against the negligent party.

If you settle out a portion of your workers’ compensation claim with the employer and insurer that addresses medical and wage loss benefits you sustained from the injury, it is smart to consider adding in a provision to the stipulation for settlement, the settlement contract or document, that addresses how the parties will address the future third-party claim as against the negligent party.

Generally, the parties should consider entering into a “no-Naig, no reverse-Naig” type agreement as a material provision of the stipulation for settlement. This basically means I won’t go behind your back to settle my portion of the claim, and you won’t go behind my back to settle out your potion. The parties have stronger negotiating power together.

So, for example, employees who enter into Naig-type settlements with third-party tortfeasors, resolve their interests for damages not recovered under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891 (Minn. 1977). These types of damages can include certain types of wage loss benefits. For example, workers’ compensation benefits such as temporary total disability and temporary partial disability pay at 2/3 of the loss. In personal injury cases, plaintiffs can claim the entire amount. Also, workers’ compensation wage loss benefits are limited in duration, even though the disability may be permanent. In personal injury cases, plaintiffs are not limited in their recovery. Plaintiffs can claim pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life. There are different claims available in the two distinct systems of recovery for injured people. While the employee might resolve his or her interest in these types of Naig settlements, the employer and insurer’s interests under Minnesota Statute §176.061 are not resolved and instead they maintain a separate intact claim for statutory reimbursement against the tortfeasor. (Id.).

On the other hand, in a reverse-Naig settlements, the employer and insurer separately settle its statutory subrogation claim under Minnesota Statute §176.061 with the tortfeasor. Folstad v. Eder, 467 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. 1991); Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891 (Minn. 1977). The employee’s interests are not satisfied and the employee or plaintiff retains a right to pursue a separate claim against the tortfeasor for benefits not recovered under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. However, the employee cannot claim benefits already satisfied and resolved by the workers’ compensation insurer. Therefore, it may appear to the jury that the injured worker did not truly suffer considerable damages that should be recovered against the tortfeasor.

Typically, in no-Naig, no reverse-Naig type settlements, the work comp insurer and the employee agree that when a settlement or a jury verdict is awarded the parties will then use the statutory formula under Minnesota Statute §176.061 which outlines how workers’ compensation insurers should be paid back. The insurer will not get 100% of its lien because the statute accounts that the injured party should not have had to shoulder the burden entirely of retaining an attorney and incurring litigation costs in obtaining a recovery from which the work comp insurer also benefited. There are also proportionate reductions in cases where the recovery is limited and the amount that is paid back to the work comp insurer may also be reduced.

If you or someone you love has sustained a career-ending injury in the line of duty as a police officer, firefighter, or first responder contact the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free-no obligation consultation. In order to maximize all possible sources of recovery, you need attorneys who practice in PERA and MSRS disability, workers’ compensation, and personal injury and who are well versed in the intricacies of the law where these three areas meet. Call us today at 877-746-5680.

• Licensed police officer
• Sheriff’s Deputy
• State Trooper
• Firefighter
• Paramedic
• Emergency medical technician
• Public safety dispatcher
• Corrections officer
• Licensed nurse who provides emergency medical services outside of a medical facility

If you fall under one of these covered positions, and you’ve been diagnosed with PTSD, this presumption will apply if: 1) you were on active duty, 2) you do not have a previous PTSD diagnosis, and 3) your PTSD injury was claimed on or after January 1, 2019.

PTSD became a compensable work injury under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act as of October 1, 2013. Since this time, employers have been denying PTSD claims at a rate that is much higher than physical injury claims. Based on a review of our past cases involving police officers and firefighters from 2013 to the present, PTSD claims were denied by employers and insurers about 80% of the time. This means that only 20% (or fewer) claims have been accepted and paid by employers and insurers and everyone else has been denied access to ongoing workers’ compensation benefits. A claim denial in workers’ compensation means that the employee has to go without medical, wage loss and rehabilitation benefits until the claim is litigated or settled. This can be an extreme financial hardship for first responders who are unable to work because of their mental health condition. This also creates barriers to first responders’ access to effective mental health care treatment.

Denied claims also take a significant psychological toll on first responders. These are people who are suffering from significant mental health issues and being told by their employers and coworkers—either explicitly or implicitly—that they should “suck it up,” get back to work, and that these PTSD symptoms are “just part of the job.” It is difficult for many first responders to seek medical treatment anyway because of this “rub some dirt on it” culture and because they know a PTSD diagnosis could end their career.

When a first responder does finally seek treatment or advice with regard to their deteriorating mental health, it usually happens after some type of “rock bottom” event—such as a DWI, a divorce, a work performance plan, an excessive use of force complaint, or a suicide attempt. Following events like these, first responders feel like they are left with no choice but to seek legal or professional help; however, in the majority of cases, the first responder needed medical care and treatment for PTSD symptoms far earlier. Unfortunately, even when first responders do report their PTSD injuries and try to get medical assistance, the workers’ compensation system has not been there to provide the help that first responders need. Employers and insurers deny PTSD claims regularly and force first responders into litigation to establish their entitlement to wage and medical benefits. This process can be grueling, especially without a legal advocate on your side. The litigation process forces first responders to constantly recall their traumas and it can feel like they are being attacked or not believed when they are reliving these vulnerable moments.

We are hopeful that this new law, which creates a presumption that a first responder’s PTSD is work-related, will force employers and insurers to accept and pay more of these claims “voluntarily.” This means that first responders will be eligible to receive ongoing workers’ compensation benefits—such as medical treatment and wage loss benefits—and will be able to get effective medical care and treatment much earlier. In turn, we hope that this will allow many more first responders to return to work in their chosen fields.

If you are a Minnesota police officer, firefighter, corrections officer or first responder experiencing work-related mental health issues and have questions about your rights under the law, contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, confidential, no-obligation consultation. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

In cases where Minnesota police officers or firefighters are injured in the line of duty through the fault of a third-party, typically a suspect or the driver of another vehicle, then he or she has a separate cause of action against the negligent person, outside of PERA/MSRS benefits and workers’ compensation benefits. In those cases, sometimes defendants try to argue to the jury that the officer or firefighter did not truly sustain any economic damage because he or she has been adequately compensated for his or her loss by PERA or MSRS Duty Disability benefits.

However, evidence of plaintiff’s receipt of PERA Duty Disability benefits under the Police and Fire Plan are inadmissible at trial. These benefits should also not be deducted as collateral sources, meaning sources that are subtracted from a jury verdict to prevent a plaintiff from unfairly double recovering. PERA Duty Disability benefits are benefits for which the employee has contributed.

Again, PERA benefits should not be admissible at trial. Minnesota Statute §548.251, subdivision 5 explicitly excludes “future benefits that may or may not be payable” from evidence and the introduction of these benefits unfairly prejudices Plaintiff as it prevents the jury from awarding accurate future damages under Rule 403 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence. Minnesota Statute §548.251 also known as the Collateral Source Rule has two distinct parts with two different applications. The first part of the rule is an evidentiary standard that determines what types of benefits are admissible before a jury. The rule then separately determines what types benefits may be offset from a jury award as discussed above.

Subdivision 5 of the Collateral Source Statute sets forth the evidentiary standard for what types of payments or benefits are admissible at trial, “the jury shall not be informed of the existence of any collateral sources orany future benefits which may or may not be payable to the plaintiff.” Minn. Stat. §548.251, subd. 5. (emphasis added). Subdivision 5 is broken into two clauses, benefits that are defined as collateral sources in subdivision 1 of Minnesota Statute §548.251 for the purposes of a future collateral source offset or “any future benefits which may or may not be payable to the plaintiff.” (Id.). Both types of benefits are excluded from evidence at trial. (Id.). PERA Duty Disability benefits are “future benefits which may or may not be payable to the plaintiff” under subdivision 5 of Minnesota Statute §548.251, and therefore are inadmissible at trial.

Like social security disability benefits and pension payments, PERA benefits are not admissible. Evidence of social security disability income and pension payments may not be admitted into evidence unless the plaintiff, through either the use of misleading statements or outright false statements or falsely conveys to the jury that he or she is destitute or in dire financial straits. Bartosch v. Lewison, 413 N.W.2d 530, 533 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987); Kroning v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 1997); Lukovsky v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., No. C5-88-2022 1989 WL 55506 (Minn. Ct. App. May 30, 1989). Even if evidence of social security or pension payments were to be allowed, the evidence is only admissible for the limited purposes of testing the credibility of the plaintiff’s assertion. Id. So long as a plaintiff does not mislead the jury into believing he or she is financial destitute, when he or she is actually receiving these benefits, then they are not admissible.

PERA Duty Disability benefits are pension benefits and are akin to social security benefits, and as such should be excluded from testimony at trial. PERA members and PERA employers, pay into PERA, rather than social security. This benefit converts to a retirement benefit at age 55 and a PERA member must continue to demonstrate his entitlement to a PERA Duty Disability award on an annual basis. An employee and an employer contribute toward this PERA pension plan while the employee worked as a police officer or a firefighter. PERA itself defines PERA Duty Disability Benefits under the Police and Fire Plan as a pension plan explicitly in its Police and Fire Plan Member Handbook. As such, under the plain language of the statute, courts should treat PERA Duty Disability pension benefits similarly to social security disability benefits and find them inadmissible.

If you or someone you love has sustained a career-ending injury in the line of duty as a police officer, firefighter, or first responder contact the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free-no obligation consultation. In order to maximize all possible sources of recovery, you need attorneys who practice in PERA and MSRS disability, workers’ compensation, and personal injury and are well versed in the intricacies of the law where these three areas meet. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Did you sustain an injury on or after October 1, 2018? If so, there are a several significant changes that went into effect in 2018 and 2019 that may increase the value of your Minnesota workers’ compensation claims.  

Temporary Partial Disability benefits (TPD):  

• What is it? These are partial wage loss benefits paid to an employee injured on the job who is earning less than his or her preinjury wage as a result of the work injury.
• Example: Officer Steve injures his lumbar spine in the course of arresting a suspect. Officer Steve is restricted from lifting more than 35 pounds and can only work 20 hours per week. Officer Steve is entitled to receive wage loss benefits from workers’ compensation for the difference between his pre-injury wage and what he is earning working 20 hours per week. 
• What changed? Wage loss benefits under the workers’ compensation have statutory caps, limiting the total number of weeks that an employee can receive benefits. The maximum number of weekly benefits available for temporary total disability benefits has been increased from 225 to 275 weeks. This means that we will be able to claim additional 50 weeks of wage loss benefits on your behalf as a part of any settlement demand, and the insurer’s financial exposure has increased in serious injury cases. 

Permanent Partial Disability (PPD): 

• What is it? This is a sum of money that is paid to an employee who has suffered a ratable, permanent impairment under the workers’ compensation disability schedules. This monetary benefit is intended to compensate injured workers for a permanent functional impairment from a work injury. 
• What changed? The table used to calculate these benefits has been changed to provide for higher payments, which will result in more money to employees who sustain permanent injuries. 

Permanent Total Disability (PTD) retirement presumption: 

• What is it? Permanent Total Disability is wage loss benefit paid to an employee who is determined to be permanently unemployable due to a work-related injury. To qualify for benefits, an employee must show that he or she has a serious medical condition, such as permanent loss of eyesight or paralysis, or that he or she has a minimum about of permanent partial disability (PPD). 
• What changed? The presumed retirement (and cessation of benefits) at age 67 has been eliminated and benefits now will cease at age 72. This is a complex area of the law. If you believe that you are permanently and totally disabled as a result of a work injury, you should seek legal assistance to ensure you are getting the benefits to which you are entitled.  

PTSD Presumption for First Responders: 

• What is it? As of October 1, 2013, Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) became a stand-alone, compensable work injury. This means that employees who were diagnosed with PTSD as a result of their work duties, were entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. 
• What changed? As of January 1, 2019, the Minnesota Legislature took it a step further and created a presumption of work-relatedness for first responders who are diagnosed with PTSD. For first responders diagnosed with PTSD on or after January 1, 2019, their PTSD is presumed to be related to their work as a police officer, firefighter, correctional officer, paramedic, dispatcher, nurse, etc. Employers and insurers will be able to rebut the presumption that the first responder’s PTSD is related to his or her work by presenting evidence that the PTSD was the result of another cause. Nevertheless, this will likely result in many more PTSD claims being accepted by employers and insurers. 

If you or someone you know has suffered from a work injury, contact the experienced attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. to explain your rights under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, PERA, MSRS, or civil law. We will work to inform you of your rights and maximize your benefits under the law. Contact us today for a free confidential, no-obligation case consultation at 1-877-746-5680.