Typically, injured employees who sustain injuries in the course and scope of their employment are unable to bring civil claims for damages they sustained. In certain circumstances when the injured worker can demonstrate that a third-party, meaning someone other than his or her employer or an agent of his or her employer, caused the injury, then he or she can bring a workers’ compensation claim and a civil claim.

In Minnesota workers’ compensation claims, it does not matter to the judge if it was the employer or the employee’s fault that he or she sustained an injury. All that matters, is that an injury occurred and the nature and extent of that injury. Typically, attorneys do not need photographic evidence of the incident. However, in civil cases, it matters which party caused the accident. 

Frequently insurance companies try to deny the seriousness of the injury or that an injury occurred. Photographs of the damage to the vehicle or photographs of the machine that caused the injury in this type of claim are helpful. For example, when a jury can see the extent of the damage to the vehicle, it becomes hard to deny that a person sustained a head injury. Video in addition to photographs also may help. Dashboard cameras in squad cars are very helpful to show the impact inside the vehicle, if the person is a police officer who was struck.

Sometimes defendants in civil actions, the responsible party at-fault for the injury, may try to “exclude” evidence. They may argue that the evidence may not be relevant or admissible under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence to prove that they were at fault, that an injury happened, or the nature and extent of the injury. However, photographs of the damage to the vehicle and squad car video is relevant and admissible in civil claims. Photographs of your own injuries right after the collision are also helpful. They help to demonstrate that you did sustain damages. Sometimes doctors in the emergency room do not document all your visible injuries.

In order to pass the court’s test for admissibility, the plaintiff or the injured party must show that the evidence is relevant under Rule 402 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence. Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable that it would be without the evidence.” See State v. Quick, 659 N.W.2d 701, 713 (Minn. 2003). See also Hagel v. Schoenbauer. 532 N.W. 2d 255, 258 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). 

Even in personal injury cases, wherein liability has been admitted by the defendant and the only issue for the jury is the amount of the damages, the photographs and video are relevant because they demonstrate the force of the impact. The impact between the vehicles helps to establish the extent of the plaintiff’s injury.Baltus v. von der Lippe, 293 Minn. 99, 100-101, 196 N.W.2d 922, 923 (1972).

Furthermore, parties must demonstrate that the photographs and video are not unduly prejudicial, meaning that the purpose of the evidence is not to make the jury very angry at the defendant. However, photographs and video can’t be excluded just because they are damaging to the defendant’s case. Graphic photographs from criminal cases are typically not excluded.

It’s important that if you, your partner, or someone in your family sustains an injury in a motor vehicle collision that you make sure the squad video, or body camera footage is preserved and that you take pictures of the damage to the vehicles as well as any physical injuries of yourself for use in litigation. 

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 1-877-746-5680.

When you sustain an injury during the course and scope of your employment and file a claim for workers’ compensation, both you and your employer have some choices. We can assure you that your employer will make decisions in their best interest so it’s important for you to understand the process and know your rights, particularly when it comes to accepting light duty work.

The first step is to seek medical treatment after which your medical professional (doctor, physicians assistant, psychologist, chiropractor, etc.) will generally issue you restrictions. First and foremost, we at Meuser Law Office P.A. advise our clients to get these restrictions from your treating physician in writing. Documentation is key to successfully navigating the workers’ compensation system. The restrictions can be more general or it can describe exactly what tasks you can and cannot perform in your current physical capacity. Often times these restrictions prevent injured workers from performing the vast majority of their prior job functions.

If your claim is “admitted,” meaning your employer has accepted primary liability for your work injury and the employer acknowledges that you sustained a work injury during the course and scope of your employment, then employers have a choice. If they have a “light duty” position available they will offer it to you or they will pay you ongoing wage loss benefits. Positions may include general office work or duties which are not quite as strenuous as your previous job. If you are completely precluded from returning to work as a result of your work injury then the wage loss benefit to which are you owed is called Temporary Total Disability benefits (TTD). TTD benefits are paid out at a rate of 2/3 of your average weekly wage, generally an average of the 26 weeks worked before the date you were injured.

Clients often ask if they can choose to receive TTD benefits rather than returning to work in a different position. This option is attractive because it gives injured workers time to recuperate from their injury and sometimes, even sitting at a desk can be painful. If your employer offers you light duty, generally you must accept this accommodated position. Not accepting an “offer of gainful employment” as defined under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act can have dire effects on your future entitlement to wage loss benefits.

Failing to accept a suitable job offer as defined in the Minnesota Work Comp Act prevents you from receiving future Temporary Total Disability benefits. But, employers may offer you light duty work that is not suitable as defined under the statute. You should have an experienced work comp attorney review your case and assess whether or not this accommodated position is truly suitable. To assist with this process, we request that our clients be assigned a Qualified Rehabilitation Consultant (QRC) as soon as possible. QRCs act as an intermediary to help assess if a position is truly suitable for injured workers. They can perform on-site job analysis and are valued participates in the return-to-work process.

An offer of “gainful employment” may be unsuitable if:

• it requires an employee to relocate
• it is outside your physical restrictions
• requires a “substantial alteration” in your lifestyle
• requires you to move from day-time shifts to night-shifts

It’s also very important to note that what’s generally good practice in a work comp claim may ruin your chances of receiving PERA Duty Disability benefits. If you are firefighter, police officer, corrections officer, or paramedic applying for PERA Duty Disability benefits, accepting a light duty position can have unintended consequences on the approval of your PERA Duty Disability application. If you have both a work comp and PERA Duty Disability claim you should consult with attorneys who extensively practice in both areas of the law. Ask your attorney how many PERA cases they have handled, if they’ve taken them to formal hearings, and how will one area affect your benefits in another area.

Employers often use light duty positions to encourage employees to quit by offering highly undesirable positions. Consult with an attorney to asses your options sooner rather than later. Don’t let them use this as a tool against you. We can help you know your rights, speak up, and ask questions.

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.

Generally, no.

As a workers’ compensation attorney, I receive calls from injured workers in Minnesota at least a few times a month who have received a check in the mail from the workers’ compensation insurance company, and a Notice of Benefit Payment form which indicates that the payment is for Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) benefits. PPD is a Minnesota workers’ compensation benefit that is payable for the permanent functional loss of use of a body part due to a work-related injury.

Injured workers in Minnesota often mistakenly assume that this money is a “settlement” of their case, or that accepting this benefit somehow means that their case is now “closed.” That is not the case. Permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits are just one kind of benefit available under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. Receiving a permanent partial disability (PPD) payment on a Minnesota workers’ compensation case does not mean that your case is settled or closed. Cashing your PPD payment does not mean that you’ve accepted a settlement, or agreed to close your case.

Usually, a permanent partial disability (PPD) payment is based on a rating that your doctor assigned to your permanent injury. The percentage rating you are assigned is then multiplied by a dollar figure set by the Minnesota legislature to determine the amount of your permanent partial disability benefit. For example, if you’ve sustained a herniated disc in your lumbar spine, and you’ve been assigned a 10% permanent partial disability rating, the benefit owed to you would be $8,000.00. In some cases, insurance companies pay a minimum amount of PPD benefits if there’s any question as to whether the injured worker might qualify for a higher rating.

Many workers who receive PPD benefits are entitled to additional benefits, including, but not limited to:

• Additional PPD benefits
• Wage loss benefits, including temporary total disability (TTD), temporary partial disability (TPD), and/or permanent total disability (PTD) benefits
• Medical expense benefits or out of pocket expense reimbursement
• Rehabilitation and/or retraining benefits

It may be valuable to have a workers’ compensation lawyer review your case for errors. It is common for a work comp insurance company to dispute PPD benefits. If, for example, your doctor assigned a PPD rating of 15% but the insurance company takes the position that your PPD rating should only be 8%, they may begin paying the undisputed portion of your benefit – the 8% – and you may not realize that the checks are less than they should be.

I recently settled a work comp case involving a gentleman who had sustained low back injuries requiring surgery while employed at two different jobs several years ago. He did not return to work after his last injury. As a result of his work-related back condition, and several serious non-work related medical conditions, he was incapable of working in any capacity.

When I first met with this gentleman, he told me that he had settled his two Minnesota workers’ compensation cases. After I received his file from the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, I realized that he had in fact received some minimal permanent partial disability (PPD) payments from the workers’ compensation insurance company. However, he had not in fact, settled his cases. This gentleman assumed that he had settled his cases because he had received a permanent partial disability PPD) payment. We worked up his case, and ultimately procured a settlement for him for $150,000.00 in addition to the establishment of a professionally administered fund to cover his ongoing medical expenses.

If you’ve received payment for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits on your Minnesota workers’ compensation case, a workers’ compensation attorney can evaluate whether the payment is appropriate and whether or not you have additional workers’ compensation claims. 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.

If you are wondering why more police officers in Minneapolis are sporting moustaches this month, some shifts on the Minneapolis Police Department are raising money for Soldier’s 6. Soldier’s 6 is a Minnesota non-profit organization that provides Veterans and police officers who suffer from service-related Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with service dogs. For people suffering from PTSD, service dogs give them more than comfort, they may save their lives. Soldier’s 6 chose its name because the service dog is the Veteran or officer’s battle buddy who has their “6” or back. PTSD service dogs may be trained to wake a veteran or police officer from a nightmare, remind them to take medication, physically interrupt a panic attack, and relieve stress and anxiety that escalate PTSD symptoms. Check out www.soldiers6.com to make donations and support this important organization.

At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we’ve represented many police officers, firefighters, and first responders who suffer from PTSD as a result of their public service. We’ve also had clients who have been able to work with service dogs who have helped them cope with the symptoms and daily effects of PTSD. These amazing service animals can help increase chemicals in the brain that may help to stop some of the problems associated with PTSD. Service dogs are known to help adjust serotonin levels, some of the chemicals associated with depression or anxiety. The dogs can also help lower blood pressure as well.

Many people with PTSD suffer from extreme anxiety in crowds. The dogs may be trained to help the police officer, firefighter, or first responder to navigate crowds and help assuage their anxiety. The dogs can also help create physical space by preventing people from crowding too close to the individual. People with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder also frequently suffer from hyper-vigilance and trouble sleeping. The service dogs may be trained to help combat nightmares by waking up the individual when he or she starts to physically struggle and toss and turn in his or her sleep. People who have service dogs report that they feel safer at night knowing that the dog was keeping watch and would wake at a small sound.

Unfortunately, in Minnesota the law under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act is unclear as to whether service dogs would be covered by workers’ comp. PTSD is a new area of law in Minnesota as of 2013. The legislature has recognized that even with the advent of PTSD as a compensable injury, firefighters, police officers, and first responders are still struggling to get their claims accepted by the insurer. As such, new legislature is being drafted to create a presumption of an injury in certain cases. Hopefully, with new studies being conducted to examine the relationship between service dogs and Veterans with PTSD, the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act will eventually help fund access to a service dog to first responders who suffer from PTSD in the line of duty. Until that time, police officers, firefighters, and first responders must turn to organizations such as Soldier’s 6 to assist. Training these incredible dogs takes time, dedication, skills, and funds.

If you or someone you know is suffering from PTSD developed in the line of duty as a police officer, firefighter, or a first responder contact the attorneys at Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free, no-obligation consultation. We will evaluate your case and explain any possible claims and rights to PERA Duty Disability, MSRS Duty Disability, healthcare continuation under Minnesota Statute §299A.465. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

Earlier this year, the Minnesota Legislature took a huge step, and passed legislation creating a workers’ compensation statutory presumption of PTSD for our state’s first responders. In other words, for certain workers in the state of Minnesota, including police officers, firefighters, corrections officers, and others defined as “first responders,” a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is to be presumed to be work-related. The goal of this bill, authorized by Representative Nick Zerwas (R), and which had almost unanimous support in the legislature, was to eliminate barriers to quick, effective medical care for our State’s first responders suffering from PTSD.

Meuser Law Office, P.A., has been on the front lines of workers’ compensation litigation surrounding PTSD since the legislature acknowledged PTSD as a compensable workers’ compensation injury effective October 1, 2013. While the law changes in 2013 made a big difference, from a practical standpoint, it really did not address the issue of getting our first responders better access to care for mental health issues. In fact, we estimate that roughly 80% of all PTSD claims, of which most involve police officers, firefighters, and corrections officers, are denied outright by the workers’ compensation insurers. The workers’ compensation system does not remotely function in a way that promotes early access to effective mental health care services for Minnesota’s first responders.

The hope was that Representative Zerwas’ presumption bill might change that. But, in order to get business interests on board, the bill also directs the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) to create “treatment parameters,” which are a set of administrative rules governing what kind of treatment is authorized, how often that treatment is authorized, and how long that treatment is authorized, amongst other things. The Department is currently in the process of drafting these rules, and unfortunately, Meuser Law is gravely concerned that the rules that are ultimately developed may very well make it even harder for our state’s first responder to access appropriate care.

Meuser Law Office was graciously invited by Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) and the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA) to participate in a meeting with Department of Labor Commissioner Ken Peterson and others to discuss the proposed treatment parameters. A copy of the draft of the rules as of September 27, 2018 can be found here.

Jen Yackley of Meuser Law Office attended the meeting with Representative Nick Zerwas, LELS, MPPOA, Commissioner Peterson and others, which took place on November 1, 2018. Here is a summary of the concerns we expressed regarding the proposed rules:

The Minnesota Legislature took an important and thoughtful step in passing Representative Zerwas’ PTSD First Responders workers’ compensation bill which created a statutory presumption of work-relatedness for our State’s first responders who have been diagnosed with PTSD. The goal of this legislation was to make it easier for our state’s firefighters, police officers and other first responders to get quick and effective access to mental health care – to reduce those hurdles that currently exist for people to get the help they need. The presumption is a necessary and good thing to try to reduce those barriers. As part of a compromise; however, the statute also requires the Department of Labor to incorporate “treatment parameters” with respect to treatment of PTSD. Based on the draft rules that we have now had the opportunity to review, we believe that the parameters – in a very practical sense – gut the entire purpose of Representative Zerwas’ presumption statute, and set up even more barriers standing in between our State’s first responders and effective mental health care.

Right now, we hear from our members every day, how difficult it has been to navigate the workers’ compensation system, where – we estimate based on anecdotal evidence – 80% of these claims are denied outright by the workers’ compensation insurers. For our State’s first responders – especially our police officers and firefighters, taking that first step to even ask for help, if they are struggling with a mental health issue, is a huge barrier. The stigma associated with PTSD in law enforcement and the fire services is slowly improving, but we have a long way to go. Officers and firefighters who are diagnosed with a mental health issue feel like failures. They feel like they are weak. They are embarrassed. They occasionally get push back from their supervisors or even colleagues. Sometimes they think sleeping with a loaded gun under their pillow, or waking up from a nightmare screaming, or reliving a terrible incident over and over again, or feeling on edge and angry all the time is normal. They make mistakes on the job – big and small. They drink too much to stop the incessant thoughts and nightmares, and they get DWIs. They use excessive force, and then they are reprimanded, and their department gets sued. The moment their department finds out that they have been diagnosed with a mental health condition, their career is over. They sometimes kill themselves.

And, then they get run through the wringer after most of them are denied for workers’ compensation benefits. The current system is designed for litigation – not for getting help to our State’s first responders. Representative Zerwas’ bill was designed to establish – presumptively, that the condition is presumed to be work-related if a first responder is diagnosed with PTSD. Hopefully, that will reduce the number of claims that are denied at the outset, and increase the number of first responders that can get early access to appropriate mental health care.

With things as they are, more often than not, by the time a first responder or firefighter seeks mental health care, things have reached a crisis level. There’s been a DWI, or a discipline issue at work, a hospitalization or suicide attempt, or the person’s marriage is falling apart. By that time, many of these people have been suffering silently for years or even decades. It’s a lot harder to undo the years of damage that have been done than it is if that person had access to effective medical care earlier on. We are aware that better outcomes for treatment of PTSD is directly tied to early intervention. 

The approach that the Department of Labor seems to have taken with respect to creating the current proposed parameters are completely divorced from the reality of PTSD, are not based on relevant, reliable empirical data regarding PTSD treatment best practices, seem to be geared primarily towards protecting business interests and promoting cost savings, create onerous and overly burdensome requirements on behalf of the providers who are treating our State’s first responders, and set up institutional hurdles that for all intents and purposes, make it harder than it is now, for our State’s first responders to access early, effective mental health care. The proposed parameters gut the purpose of Representative Zerwas’ First Responder Presumption bill.

More specifically, our concerns are as follows:

• It appears that the proposed parameters – up until this point – were crafted primarily with input from business interests, including self-insured cities and workers’ compensation insurers, including League of Minnesota Cities and Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust. This includes doctors recommended by these entities, including Dr. Leesa Scott-Morrow, who we know to be primarily involved in adverse defense examinations. These proposed parameters seem to be oriented almost exclusively towards saving costs, even though there is zero evidence to suggest that cost containment is an issue of significance in handling of PTSD claims. From what we have seen, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and League of Minnesota Cities routinely deny 80% of PTSD claims involving police officers and firefighters. It is unknown whether Minnesota Counties has ever accepted a PTSD claim involving a police officer. Given the limited number of claims that are even accepted, it is hard to imagine that treatment for PTSD constitutes a significant cost for workers’ compensation carriers. Compared to treating a back injury, or any other orthopedic issues that might necessitate surgery, the cost of treating PTSD seems cheap. Further, there is no evidence of excessive or abusive billing practices in the context of PTSD treatment.

• The presumption statute is not going to “open the floodgates” to claims. Anecdotally, most of the “reasons” work comp carriers currently deny claims will still be viable defenses notwithstanding the presumption. For example, as of late, League of Minnesota Cities has routinely been denying claims on the basis that it is unclear whether an individual’s diagnosis of PTSD, depression, or anxiety is the cause of the disability where there are co-morbidities. That defense will not be affected by the presumption statute. Further, even where work comp carriers initially accept liability, they invariably invoke their right to an “independent” medical examination which, approximately 90% of the time, results in an adverse opinion, providing the insurer with a basis to cut off the person’s benefits. Work comp carriers already have plenty of tools at their disposal to deny or cut off PTSD claims. 

• Minnesota’s first responders are a unique population, and they are unquestionably going to be the primary population affected by the treatment parameters. According to Commissioner Peterson, pre-presumption statute, police officers and firefighters make up approximately 2/3 of all workers’ compensation claims for PTSD. With the presumption statute, which expands the umbrella to include corrections, paramedics, and certain medical professionals, realistically, that proportion will go up even higher. Non-first responders will clearly be a very small portion of all PTSD claims in Minnesota, and the PTSD parameters must be written in such a way that they acknowledge the population that is actually going to be impacted. It is non-sensical to draft PTSD parameters on the basis of “norms” for the general public, when that is clearly not the population that will be primarily impacted. First responders are different than military, and they are different from the general public. They see and experience trauma – sometimes on a daily basis – that most civilians avoid having to experience even once in a lifetime. How many people who are involved in the actual drafting of the parameters have any personal experience with PTSD? Do any of them have friends or family that have experienced PTSD? Those involved in the drafting seem to have a rather “ivory tower” perspective of what PTSD is for our State’s first responders. How many of Minnesota’s first responders who actually have work-related PTSD had any input in the treatment parameters? For those reasons, attempting to generalize a “best-practices” guide that is cobbled together from the APA and the VA – which are geared unequivocally toward non-comparable populations, denies the reality that in Minnesota, the vast majority of people that will be impacted by the proposed parameters are our State’s first responders. 

• The current proposed treatment parameters are – in effect – politically-designed rules that purport to establish medical best practices for the treatment of PTSD – primarily in first responders. These parameters are functionally a legislative medical experiment. The proposed rules literally require medical providers to apply an untested, unproven, and arbitrary treatment protocol to our State’s first responders suffering from PTSD. DLI and the legislature would never purport to tell a surgeon how to perform a surgery, but that is exactly what these parameters do. They force medical providers to use the specific approach set forth in the rules without regard to whether that is an appropriate approach for the individual patient, or not. The current parameters are pieced together from the VA, the APA, and “input” from a handful of medical professionals, whose opinions and specific recommendations are not disclosed, and not necessarily appropriate or relevant. Our first responders suffering from PTSD are NOT guinea pigs, and the parameters are not license for DLI to conduct medical experiments on our first responders. If DLI is truly trying to institute parameters that are rooted in validated, relevant medical practice, the Department needs to speak with practitioners that are actually treating our State’s first responders. 

• As an alternative to the current approach of arbitrarily cobbling together rules from dubiously-appropriate sources, we propose that DLI use its rule-making authority to commission a study regarding treatment practices and outcomes for Minnesota’s first responders that are currently treating for PTSD. Before we can write rules establishing “best practices” for treatment of PTSD in first responders, we have to have some idea what works and what doesn’t in this specific population, and that information must be obtained from providers who are actually providing treatment to those individuals.

We are cautiously optimistic that the Department of Labor is open to input from medical professionals who are currently treating members of Minnesota’s first responder community to find out what actually works.

At this time, it is unknown when the parameters will take effect, and in what form, but be assured that Meuser Law Office, P.A. will continue to fight for common sense parameters that accurately reflect the needs of our State’s first responders.

If you are 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.

Police officers or firefighters who sustain injuries in the line of duty with a third-party civil claim component to their claims, may be faced with the question if PERA and MSRS Duty Disability benefits should be offset from their wage loss recovery. Typically, workers who sustain injuries arising out of the course and scope of his or her employment may not bring a claim for negligence, meaning he or she may only have a claim for limited benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act paid by the entity’s insurer or the entity itself if the City is self-insured for the purposes of workers’ compensation. If an injured worker is a police officer or a firefighter, and the injury is sustained while performing inherently dangerous duties specific to the public service position then he or she may also have a PERA or MSRS Duty Disability claim for benefits. If someone can demonstrate that a person or business other than the employer is the cause of the injury, then the claimant may bring a claim as against that the person responsible who acted carelessly or unreasonably. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we have brought claims on behalf of firefighters who have been injured by negligent construction of buildings, police officers who have been injured in motor vehicle collisions, and police officers injured by suspects resisting arrest.

Sometimes damages awarded by a jury may be reduced by a judge under the Collateral Source Rule, Minn. Stat. § 548.251. The jury is not informed that a Plaintiff may or may not be receiving other types of monetary benefits, such as workers’ compensation wage loss benefits. The judge later determines what amount of the jury’s verdict should be deducted for workers’ compensation benefits paid. The theory is that a Plaintiff should not “double recover” from multiple sources. The balance of the Collateral Source Rule is that while a Plaintiff should not recovery twice from multiple sources a tortfeasor, the negligent party, should not escape paying damages because a Plaintiff was able to recover from other sources. The workers’ compensation insurer would have a subrogation interest as against the negligent party and part of the jury verdict would be paid to the workers’ compensation insurer for types of benefits it had to pay because of the carelessness and negligence of the tortfeasor.

The question that the courts have yet to resolve is whether PERA or MSRS Duty Disability benefits should be deducted from an award of damages. Pension payments and payments made “pursuant to the United States Social Security Act” are explicitly excluded from the definition of a collateral source.  Minn. Stat. § 548.251, subd. 1(2). PERA or MSRS members pay into PERA or MSRS rather than Social Security, so arguably the courts should treat benefits payable from PERA or MSRS as they do Social Security benefits.

Regardless, of whether or not PERA or MSRS is a collateral source, these benefit payments should not be admissible evidence, meaning the jury should not be informed that a Plaintiff is currently receiving PERA or MSRS Duty Disability benefits or may be entitled to said benefits. This evidence is prejudicial and allows a negligent party escape responsibility because a jury might wrongly believe that a person has already been compensated for his or her loss of future income due to the injury. Under Minnesota Statute §248.251, subdivision 5, a jury shall not be informed of the existence of any collateral source or any future benefits which may or may not be payable to the plaintiff. This type of evidence is only admissible if a Plaintiff gives the jury the impression that he or she is in dire financial straits due to the injury; and even then, the evidence is only allowed for the limited purpose of cross-examining the Plaintiff to test his or her credibility with the assertion that he or she is in fact in dire financial straits.

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 1-877-746-5680.

If you have sustained an injury while on duty, it is important to contact an experienced Minnesota workers’ compensation attorney right away. The longer you wait, the more difficult it may be to successfully establish a claim. Here are 5 important steps to follow when filing a claim to ensure you take advantage of the benefits you are entitled to under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act:

(1) Talk to an experienced workers’ compensation attorney before you do a recorded statement or proceed any further in the workers’ compensation process.

Sometimes employers will tell employees that lawyers are “expensive” or say something else to discourage the injured officer from obtaining legal advice. This behavior is against the law! Intentionally obstructing an employee from seeking workers’ compensation benefits is not permitted under Minnesota Statute §176.82, subdivision 1. Employees can bring a civil claim for damages against his or her employer.

Work comp attorneys in Minnesota are not paid unless there is a dispute. Work comp attorneys are all paid the same in Minnesota and the pay is set by statute. Also, Minnesota work comp attorneys do not require a retainer.

An attorney is able to handle all aspects of the claim process, such as:
Continue reading →

Sometimes undergoing a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) can help your workers’ compensation case if there is a dispute over the extent of your physical restrictions. Oftentimes the restrictions issued by your treating physician will differ from those issued by the insurance company’s doctor after undergoing an Independent Medical Exam (IME). An FCE can provide clarity and objectively show that an injured worker has physical restrictions. Sometimes a treating physician will refer an injured worker for a FCE and the insurance company will deny the testing.

A Functional Capacity Evaluation is a series of objective tests used to determine an injured workers’ functional limitations. After the evaluation is completed, an injured worker’s treating physician will examine the results of the FCE and then issue permanent restrictions.

The testing can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days. Testing also generally involves an interview to determine why types of conditions you have both work and non-work related, types of treatment you’ve undergone, type and intensity of symptoms, and how your symptoms impact your daily living activities. Testing includes performing simulated work tasks such as lifting, pushing and pulling, squatting, overhead activities, and other relevant physical activities.

While injured workers are not expected to continue to perform activities that cause him or her pain, the goal is to determine the maximum abilities that he or she is able to perform. So it is important to tell the tester when the activity causes the employee pain and it’s critical not to exaggerate symptoms during testing. The people who administer FCEs are experts and will be able to tell if the injured worker is exaggerating any symptoms. It will hurt your Minnesota workers’ compensation claim if the tester documents that the employee is exaggerating his or her symptoms.

A FCE report will then be created after the employee completes the testing. An FCE report typically lists limitations on weight lifting, bending, twisting, pushing, pulling, kneeling, overhead work, sitting or standing for prolonged periods. The FCE report is often extensive and can provide valuable evidence in a workers’ compensation hearing.

Typically, a Functional Capacity Evaluation takes place after an injured worker reaches Maximum Medical Improvement, also referred to as MMI. A treating physician will determine that an injured employee is at MMI when he or she has reached a plateau in treatment or he or she is as good as he or she is going to get and no new treatment is anticipation or recommended.

Qualified Rehabilitation Consultants (QRCs) may use the results from the Functional Capacity Evaluation to determine suitability of light duty or employment with a new employer. A QRC may then use these permanent restrictions to come up with a plan to get the employee back to work and may even use them to propose a retraining plan, if the restrictions are preventing the employee from re-entering the workforce in a position that pays similar to his or her pre-injury wage.

After receiving the results of a FCE the employer may determine that it cannot accommodate an employee’s permanent restrictions and then may terminate the employee. Separating from a date of injury employer is not always a bad thing and it’s important to consult with an attorney to help with this process. The results from a Functional Capacity Evaluation can help to leverage a workers’ compensation settlement as well. In cases with employees who have PERA or MSRS Duty Disability claims it can provide valuable evidence that the date of injury employer can no longer accommodate the police officer, firefighter, deputy sheriff, corrections officer, or State Trooper’s permanent restrictions.

Don’t wait to get an attorney involved if you have a Minnesota workers’ compensation claim. The process can be complex and you want to be sure you receive the full benefits you are entitled. Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free no-obligation consultation and extensive claim evaluation. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we keep our clients informed of the process as well as what to expect each step of the way. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.

1. Working “light duty” with date of injury employer

When you sustain an injury at work and have been released to return to work in some capacity by your treating physician, you are able to return to work while continuing to make a workers’ compensation claim. The first place you will want to look for a job is with your date of injury employer. Your employer does not have an obligation to offer you a “light duty” job under the Workers’ Compensation Act, or any other law; however, Minnesota law expressly prohibit employers from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who has suffered a work injury or has made a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. In order to ensure that they do not violate Minnesota law, employers will many times look into making reasonable accommodations for an injured employee. In practice, this may mean that an employer may offer you a temporary, modified position, within your physical restrictions, until such time as you are released to full-duty work.

2. Working for a new employer

If your date of injury employer is unable to accommodate your work restrictions, and it is expected that you are going to have work restrictions for an indefinite or lengthy period of time, it may make sense to take a job elsewhere that is within your physical restrictions. Accepting a position with a new employer will not affect your entitlement to past or future workers’ compensation benefits. If you are released to return to work in some capacity and you are not conducting any type of job search or applying for positions, you will be at risk of losing your wage loss benefits. Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, there is a requirement that an injured worker conduct a “diligent job search” to find a job and mitigate his or her ongoing wage loss. If you are released to return to work and you are not searching for work, your wage loss benefits may be at risk. Similarly, if you are “underemployed”—working part-time or at a significant wage loss with a new employer—you are still obligated to conduct a diligent job search to gain entitlement to ongoing temporary partial wage loss benefits.

3. Know your options – we can help!

The workers’ compensation system is complex and it can be difficult for employees to make informed decisions with regard to accepting “light duty” job offers without an experienced attorney walking you through the process and highlighting potential pitfalls.

Don’t wait to get an attorney involved if you have a Minnesota workers’ compensation claim. The process can be complex and you want to be sure you receive the full benefits to which you are entitled. Contact Meuser Law Office, P.A. for a free no-obligation consultation and claim evaluation. At Meuser Law Office, P.A. we keep our clients informed of the process as well as what to expect each step of the way. Call us today at 1-877-746-5680.