Case Title: Adams v. Nadave

Citation: 245 N.W.2d 227

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1976-08-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
245 N.W.2d 227 (1976) Lawrence L. ADAMS, Respondent, v. Ralph NADAVE, d.b.a. Little Canada Lumber Company, et al., Relators. No. 46037. Supreme Court of Minnesota. August 6, 1976. *228 Fitch & Johnson and Raymond W. Fitch, Minneapolis, for relators. Abrams & Spector and John J. Horvei, Minneapolis, for respondent. Heard before ROGOSHESKE, MacLAUGHLIN and MARSDEN, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc. PER CURIAM. On writ of certiorari to the Workers' Compensation Board, this case concerns the extent of retraining benefits to which an employee is entitled under Minn.St.1971, § 176.662, after removal from employment because of an occupational disease.[1] Employee, Lawrence L. Adams, was afflicted with allergic conjunctivitis in his eyes as a result of exposure to fine particles of wood and sawdust during his employment by Ralph Nadave as a carpenter. He was awarded 33 weeks and 2 days of temporary total and temporary partial disability compensation; removed from employment as a carpenter to avoid further hazardous exposures; and certified for retraining to become an industrial arts teacher. Two statutes are arguably applicable. Minn.St.1971, § 176.662, provides in pertinent part as follows: In contrast, Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8, applicable expressly to employees disabled by injury rather than occupational disease, provides: Under the italicized language in Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8, an employee taking his retraining intermittently because of enrollment in a curriculum with scheduled interruptions for semester or quarter breaks and summer vacations, or because of unscheduled interruptions for reasons of personal convenience or hardship, could still obtain the maximum allowable benefits without a calendar week limitation. However, the language of Minn.St.1971, § 176.662, is on its face distinguishable from the language of Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8. It is more comparable to language which we construed in Johnson v. Iverson, 175 Minn. 319, 325, 221 N.W. 65, 67 (1928), and Marsolek v. Miller Waste Mills, 244 Minn. 55, 57, 69 N.W.2d 617, 619 (1955), to impose a calendar week limitation. The compensation judge interpreted Minn.St.1971, § 176.662, in a manner consistent with our precedents: The compensation board, on appeal from the determination of the compensation judge, rejected this interpretation. It held that the phrase "as provided by the workmen's compensation law" in Minn.St.1971, § 176.662, referred back to Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8, and reflected a legislative intent that employees removed for occupational disease, like injured employees, be entitled to retraining benefits up to 104 weeks during periods of actual retraining, without calendar week limitation. The employee makes a similar argument before this court. The difficulty with this interpretation is that, to the extent Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8, is incorporated, it would be incorporated in toto, including the last sentence thereof, which would limit the employee's retraining benefits in this case to 33 weeks and 2 days. We understand employee's argument to be that this limitation would not operate in this manner because in this case, although temporary disability compensation was payable for only 33 weeks and 2 days, the employee was in effect temporarily partially disabled during the period of his retraining as well. This contention is based upon the following language from Morrison v. Merrick's Super Market, Inc. 300 Minn. 535, 536, 220 N.W.2d 344, 345 (1974): *230 However, in Morrison the employee had an actual physical disability. Temporary partial disability compensation had been denied him because he had refused to perform work offered by his employer which could be performed in his disabled condition. The effect of the retraining course was to make the employee unavailable for the work offered by his employer, thus removing the reason for denying his compensation in the first place. Participation in the retraining course was not itself a disability. Here, unlike Morrison, we have no underlying temporary partial disability award beyond 33 weeks and 2 days. As here applied, incorporation of Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8, would offer the employee the option of (1) 33 weeks and 2 days retraining benefits or (2) up to 104 weeks of compensation during unemployment under Minn.St.1971, § 176.662. Since the result of offering such alternatives would be to discourage retraining, we cannot believe that the legislature intended such disparate options. For this reason, we reject the incorporation theory. We think the phrase "as provided by the workmen's compensation law" may be properly understood when read in conjunction with the following language in Minn.St.1971, § 176.66, subd. 1: In other words, while some of the procedural provisions in Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8, would apply to retraining of occupationally diseased employees, where the provisions in Minn.St.1971, § 176.662, specifically applicable to such employees, are inconsistent, the more specific would prevail. The specific language of Minn.St.1971, § 176.662, with respect to the extent of retraining benefits clearly contains a calendar week limitation. Accordingly, we hold the compensation judge was correct and reverse the compensation board's interpretation. Respondent is allowed the sum of $400 attorneys fees on this appeal. Reversed. [1] Minn.St.1971, § 176.662, was repealed by L.1973, c. 643, § 12, and retraining benefits for occupationally diseased as well as injured employees are now clearly governed by different language in Minn.St. 176.101, subd. 7 (L.1975, c. 359, § 8). Therefore, our holding in this case does not affect the present operation of the Workers' Compensation Law. [2] Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8, was amended by L.1975, c. 359, § 8, and is now Minn.St. 176.101, subd. 7. The last sentence of Minn.St.1971, § 176.101, subd. 8, has been deleted and the 104-week period has been enlarged to 156 weeks. But the language italicized above remains otherwise unchanged.