Source: https://id.scribd.com/document/1719119/Department-of-Labor-0804wcca
Timestamp: 2019-06-16 18:33:11
Document Index: 14963055

Matched Legal Cases: ['§176', '§176', '§176', '§176', '§176', '§176', '§176', 'art 5220', '§176', '§176', 'art 1415', 'art 1415', '§176', '§176', '§176', '§176', '§176', 'art, 6', 'art 5223']

Department of Labor: 0804wcca | Employment (28 views)
simpanSimpan Department of Labor: 0804wcca Untuk Nanti
Case summaries published are
those prepared by the WCCA
Cull v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 4/1/04*
DOI: 12/8/98
Evidence – Expert Medical Opinion
An expert’s alleged lack of information goes to the weight of his or her opinion, rather than to its
foundation. The expert medical opinions which the compensation judge relied upon in this case had
Causation – Aggravation
Expert medical opinion is not the only factor to consider when determining whether an aggravation
of a pre-existing condition is temporary or permanent. Substantial evidence supports the
compensation judge’s findings that the employee’s work injury had caused a permanent aggravation
of her pre-existing low back condition and that the proposed surgery is causally related to the
employee’s work injury.
Black v. Honeywell, Inc., 4/5/04
Vacation of Award – Substantial Change in Condition
The evidence offered in this case demonstrates a substantial change in the employee’s medical
condition sufficient to warrant vacation of the 1991 award on stipulation.
Petition to vacate granted.
Anderson v. Proforce, 4/8/04
DOI: 9/11/01, 7/7/99
Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s denial of the requested fusion surgery.
Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s decision that the employee sustained a
specific injury and a Gillette injury as of Sept. 11, 2001.
Nagel v. Hennepin County, 4/6/04
DOI: 10/24/01
Gillette Injury – Causation
Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the judge’s conclusion that the employee
did not sustain a work-related Gillette injury to her cervical spine.
The compensation judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to admit into evidence a detailed
written description of the employee’s job duties that was duplicative of the employee’s testimony.
Klein v. Thomson Corporation/West Group, 4/8/04
DOI: 1/21/02, 7/14/98
Causation – Medical Expenses
Causation – Intervening Cause
Causation – Pre-existing Condition
Where it was not unreasonable and was supported by adequately founded expert medical opinion,
the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s 1998 work injury was not a substantial
contributing factor in the employee’s January 2002 need for low back surgery or in his March 2002
motor vehicle accident or in his subsequent disability and need for medical treatment was not clearly
D-2 • COMPACT • August 2004
Causation – Gillette Injury
Where the employment tasks identified by the employee did not in and of themselves appear to be so
stressful and repetitive as to require reversal of the compensation judge’s conclusion contrary to the
medical opinion on which the judge relied, and where the medical opinion on which the judge relied
was not unfounded and did not improperly apply the Reese legal standard instead of the Steffen legal
standard, the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee did not sustain a Gillette-type work
Bieniek v. Griggs-Cooper, Inc., et al, 4/16/04
DOI: 1997, 1988
Practice and Procedure – Temporary Order
Where, subsequent to the issuance of a temporary order concerning payment of proposed lumbar
fusion surgery, the petitioning employer and insurer received medical evidence raising issues as to
both causation and reasonableness and necessity, it was appropriate to vacate the temporary order.
Temporary order vacated.
Feig v. City of St. Paul, 4/16/04
DOI: 2/11/97
Attorney Fees – Roraff
Where the employer objected to the employee’s request for Roraff fees and requested a hearing on
the issue, but the compensation judge issued an award of fees without hearing, the award of fees was
vacated and the matter remanded for hearing and new findings.
Hamm v. Marvin Windows and Doors, et al, 4/21/04
DOI: 3/15/90
Causation – Substantial Contributing Cause
Where, prior to the nonwork-related electrical burn injury that resulted in amputation of his
nondominant arm, the employee had already been incapable of performing more than light
to medium work within his restrictions due to his low back work injury, and where it was not
unreasonable for the compensation judge to conclude that the low back disability, in combination
with the employee’s age, training, and experience and the type of work available in his community,
D-3 • COMPACT • August 2004
was substantial, the compensation judge’s conclusions that the employee’s low back work injury
was a substantial contributing factor in his permanent total disability and that his nonwork-related
electrical burn injury was not a superseding intervening cause of that disability was not clearly
Jackson v. Polaris Industries, 4/21/04
DOI: 1/14/02
Practice and Procedure – Remand
Where the court could not resolve a material inconsistency between two of the judge’s findings, and
where the judge’s findings did not contain a sufficient statement of the facts to form a basis for the
award of temporary total disability benefits, the court vacated the judge’s findings and order and
remanded the matter for redetermination.
Nemitz v. Walker Methodist, et al, 4/21/04
DOI: 4/13/90
Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion and the employee’s lack of medical treatment
for many years, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s 1990 work injury was
not a substantial contributing cause of her current low back condition.
Tiffany v. Thielen Bus Lines, Inc., 4/27/04
DOI: 1/2/01
Where the employee submitted evidence of worsening mid- and low back symptoms, new treatment
for the mid- and low back, and MRI scans showing degenerative changes in the mid- and low back
subsequent to a full, final and complete settlement, specifically referencing only the cervical spine
and left shoulder, there is a sufficient prima facie showing of a change in condition to vacate the
award on stipulation.
D-4 • COMPACT • August 2004
Larson v. Mark J. Traut Wells, Inc., 4/29/04
DOI: 11/1/02
Withdrawal from the Labor Market
Where the compensation judge failed to make any findings with respect to the employer and
insurer’s claims that the employee had failed to make a diligent job search and had withdrawn from
the labor market, the judge’s award of temporary total disability benefits is vacated and the case
Westling v. Untiedt Vegetable Farm, 4/29/04
Where no medical opinion provided a causal relationship between the employee’s work injury and
his chronic pain syndrome and depression, substantial evidence did not support the compensation
Bradburn v. Northwest Airlines Corporation, 5/4/04
DOI: 11/13/97
Substantial evidence, including expert opinion, supported the compensation judge’s conclusion that
the employee developed occupational asthma due to exposure to chemicals in the workplace.
Barros v. Scimed Life Systems, 5/5/04
DOI: 2/7/00, 12/1/99
Given the lack of supporting medical opinion, substantial evidence does not support the
compensation judge’s finding that the employee sustained a Gillette injury to her right arm.
Reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded in part.
D-5 • COMPACT • August 2004
Pfannenstein v. Earthworks Excavating, 5/6/04
DOI: 12/6/02
Evidence – Credibility
The compensation judge’s finding that the employee was not a credible witness is not manifestly
contrary to the substantial evidence of record, and combined with the opinion of Dr. Yellin, supports
the judge’s determination that the employee failed to prove he sustained an injury arising out of his
Finley v. Taystee Baking Company, 5/7/04
Minnesota Statutes §176.285
Service by mail is not effective if the original mailing is incorrectly addressed. Where service by
mail was attempted, but the original mailing was addressed to the incorrect suite, was returned to the
sender, and remailed three days after the time for an appeal had expired, this court lacks jurisdiction
and has no authority to hear the appeal.
Hanson v. Team Personnel Service, Inc., 5/7/04*
DOI: 8/23/02
Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1
If temporary total disability benefits have been discontinued because the employee has been released
to return to work without work-injury-related restrictions, and if restrictions are subsequently
reimposed prior to 90 days post maximum medical improvement (MMI) and prior to payment of 104
weeks of temporary total disability compensation, the employee once again becomes eligible, under
authority implied in Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(h), for temporary total disability benefits
at the time of the reimposition of restrictions, subject to defenses.
Where, prior to 90-days post MMI and prior to receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability
benefits, benefits had been discontinued because the employee had returned to work without
restrictions, and where, upon reimposition of restrictions, the compensation judge had erroneously
denied recommencement of benefits under Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(e)(2), based on a
D-6 • COMPACT • August 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
finding that the employee was not “actively employed” at the time of the reimposition of restrictions,
the matter was remanded to the compensation judge for reconsideration and findings as to the
employee’s entitlement.
Appeals – Law of the Case
Where the compensation judge had made certain findings as to the employee’s diagnosis, restrictions
and credibility during a benefits period not at issue before the judge and already addressed and
settled under previous litigation, and where one of those findings was contrary to an unappealed
conclusion in the previous litigation, the finding contrary to the previous litigation was reversed, and
the other findings regarding that settled period were vacated as outside the judge’s jurisdiction.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part.
Sundby v. City of St. Peter, et al, 5/10/04*
DOI: 6/27/92, 12/31/86
Credits and Offsets – Social Security Offset
Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 4
Child’s insurance benefits are included in calculating the amount of the Social Security offset against
permanent and total disability benefits under M.S. §176.101, subd. 4.
Lipez, Sr., v. Quality Pork Processors, 5/13/04
DOI: 11/7/00
Temporary Partial Disability – Earning Capacity
The compensation judge’s award of temporary partial disability benefits is affirmed when the
employer and insurer failed to rebut the presumption that the employee’s post-injury earnings
reflected his diminished earning capacity.
The compensation judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the employee’s claim for penalties
for nonpayment of benefits but remand is necessary for consideration of the claim for penalties for
noncompliance with Minnesota Statutes §176.238.
D-7 • COMPACT • August 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Schjenken v. Bermo, Inc., 5/13/04
DOI: 2/8/00
Rehabilitation – Eligibility
Minnesota Rules, part 5220.0100, subp. 22, requires the employee be precluded from engaging in
either the job the employee held at the time of the injury or the employee’s usual and customary
occupation to be eligible for rehabilitation assistance. Substantial evidence supports the
compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee’s usual and customary occupation was a welder,
and that the employee was likely to be permanently precluded from engaging in this occupation.
Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee was a
qualified employee and was entitled to rehabilitation services.
Practice and Procedure – Expansion of the Issues
Where the employer had three months notice of the employee’s claim for temporary partial
disability, presented testimony at the hearing in defense of the claim, and showed no specific
prejudice as a result of the addition of the claim, the compensation judge properly included the
employee’s claim for temporary partial disability benefits at the hearing.
Where the employee provided evidence of ongoing restrictions and reduced wages, obtained a
number of jobs during the period in dispute, and provided evidence of a job search, substantial
evidence supports the conclusion that the employee suffered a loss of earning capacity as a result of
her work injury, and the compensation judge’s award of temporary partial disability benefits.
Petition to Vacate – Newly Discovered Evidence
It is not the purpose of this court’s authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §§176.461 and 176.521,
to permit repeated litigation of factual issues already decided on competent evidence. The award
of temporary partial disability benefits in this case is effective through the date of hearing. If, post-
hearing, the employee is no longer entitled to wage loss benefits because she has returned to work
for the employer at full wages, Minnesota Statutes §§176.238 and 176.239 provide the appropriate
remedy for discontinuing payment of wage-loss benefits.
Affirmed. Petition to vacate denied.
Bergeleen v. Hennepin County Medical Center, 5/17/04
DOI: 5/31/02
Attorney Fees – Heaton
While the record minimally supported the conclusion that a dispute existed over the employee’s
entitlement to some computer classes, the judge’s fee award of more than $7,000 was clearly
excessive where the fee statement did not document the claimed hours of work, some time spent was
clearly unrelated to any rehabilitation dispute, there had been no trial or conference in the matter,
D-8 • COMPACT • August 2004
primary liability had been admitted, no depositions were taken or scheduled, no independent experts
were consulted, and the issue was uncomplicated and could not have required much preparation.
Cook v. Arnold Memorial Health Care Center, 5/19/04
DOI: 9/25/92
Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion and the employee’s testimony, supports the
compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s 1992 work injury was a substantial contributing
cause of the employee’s disability and need for treatment after June 5, 1997.
Engelstad v. Hibbing Electric, 5/19/04
DOI: 5/19/98, 10/4/97, 7/8/96
Practice and Procedure – Dismissal
Minnesota Rules Part 1415.1700, subp. 2
In this particular case, because Minnesota Rules Part 1415.1700, subp. 2, contains no time limit
for filing a response to a motion to dismiss, and because no hearing was held on the motion, the
employee was effectively denied due process when the compensation judge dismissed her claim
Ganfield v. City of Richfield, 5/24/04*
DOI: 12/14/00
Causation – Peace Officers Presumption
Minnesota Statutes §176.011, subd. 15
The employee was not entitled to the operation of the presumption of occupational disease where
substantial evidence supported the findings that he had not been diagnosed with myocarditis and that
his cardiomyopathy was not the result of an alleged work-related previous myocarditis condition.
D-9 • COMPACT • August 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Peter v. Volt Information Sciences, 5/26/04
DOI: 6/3/00
Wages – Allowances
Minnesota Statutes §176.011, subd. 3
Where the compensation judge properly concluded that the employee’s equipment rental agreement
with the employer was not “part of the wage contract,” as would be required under Minnesota
Statutes §176.011, subd. 3, for its proceeds to be included in the employee’s weekly wage, the
compensation judge’s decision to exclude from the employee’s weekly wage the amount paid
weekly to the employee pursuant to his separate equipment rental agreement with the employer was
Beckman v. Northside Construction, 6/1/04
DOI: 4/22/87
Because the employee submitted the documentation that was missing in his first petition to vacate,
and because the question of causation is not entirely clear, the matter is referred to the Office of
Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing and factual findings on the factors specified
in Fodness v. Standard Café, 41 W.C.D. 1054 (W.C.C.A. 1989). Pending claims for subsequent
work injuries do not make a petition to vacate premature where success in litigation related to the
subsequent injuries will not allow the employee to make a full recovery of benefits.
Referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Kunkel v. Target Corporation, 6/1/04
DOI: 6/3/95
The employee's petition to vacate is granted where, although the diagnosis of the employee's
underlying condition had not changed significantly, the employee provided evidence of a substantial
change for the worse in her ability to work, an increase in her permanent partial disability, and
significantly more costly and extensive medical care than was anticipated at the time of settlement.
There was no dispute as to the existence of a causal relationship between the employee's worsened
condition and the injury covered by the settlement. Additionally, although the initial discectomy
could have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the award, the employee's subsequent fusion
surgeries and operation to correct pruritis resulting from the first fusion surgery could not have been
reasonably contemplated at the time of settlement.
D-10 • COMPACT • August 2004
Vike v. Horwitz, Inc., 6/1/94
DOI: 1/2/02
Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge's decision that the employee reached
maximum medical improvement from his work injury.
Kahlstorf v. Potlatch Corporation, 6/2/04
DOI: 1/3/93
Where the employer did not appeal the compensation judge's finding that the employee had
conducted a reasonable job search and did not otherwise address the issue of job search in the notice
of appeal, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the compensation judge's determination on
the issue of job search.
Causation – Substantial Contribution Cause
Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge's finding
that the employee's 1993 work injury was a substantial contributing cause of his permanent total
Tillemans v. Pierce Company of Minneapolis, Inc., 6/2/04*
DOI: 3/2/00
Causation – Temporary Aggravation
Substantial evidence of record supports the compensation judge's finding that the employee's work-
related injury to her head and cervical spine represented a temporary aggravation of her pre-existing
condition, and his finding that the employee did not sustain an injury to her left shoulder and thoracic
spine as a result of her work-related injury.
D-11 • COMPACT • August 2004 * This case is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Rivas a/k/a Pleigo v. Car Wash Partners, 6/4/04
DOI: 4/11/03
Job Offier – Refusal
Minnesota Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(i)
Where the employer conditioned its post-injury job offer on a satisfactory explanation as to the
employee's eligibility to work in this country, and where the unauthorized alien employee failed
to respond to the offer because of his illegal immigration status, the compensation judge properly
concluded that the employee had refused gainful employment within the meaning of Minnesota
Statutes §176.101, subd. 1(i) and was therefore ineligible for temporary total disability benefits.
Scanlon v. Caille Farm, Inc., 6/4/04
DOI: 5/29/02
Where the parties fail to present evidence on an issue necessary for the determination of the appeal,
the matter is remanded to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
McCannell v. Cal-Inland, Inc., 6/8/04
DOI: 8/11/87
Where the employee failed to demonstrate a significant change in diagnosis or any significant change
in his ability to work, and the employer and insurer paid the employee's medical expenses for his
surgery and an increased amount of permanent partial disability benefits, the petition to vacate the
award on stipulation is denied.
Petition to vacate denied.
Busch v. Wal-Mart, 6/9/04
DOI: 10/12/01
The evidence adequately supported the compensation judge's decision that the employee, as
a reasonable person, had sufficient information as to the nature, seriousness, and probable
compensability of her work injury to trigger commencement of the notice period as of the date of
injury, making her notice of injury to the employer more than 180 days later untimely.
D-12 • COMPACT • August 2004
Drinkwater v. Randall Brothers Heating, 6/10/04
DOI: 11/3/00
Rehabilitation – Retraining
Where it was not unreasonable in light of the factors articulated in Poole v. Farmstead Foods, 42
W.C.D. 970 (W.C.C.A. 1989), the compensation judge's award of the retraining at issue was not
clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding the fact that it arguably
presumed ongoing improvement in the employee's condition in reliance on the employee's treating
doctor's somewhat speculative prognosis.
Hamann v. Syngenta Corporation, 6/10/04
DOI: 12/20/01
Where substantial evidence in the form of the employee's testimony supported the compensation
judge's finding of a reasonably diligent job search by an employee having work restrictions from his
injury, he qualified for temporary total disability compensation.
Where the employee's treating physician continued to recommend further surgery for the employee's
right upper extremity condition, substantial evidence supported the compensation judge's finding that
maximum medical improvement had not yet been reached.
Medical Expenses – Reasonable and Necessary
Where a bill for medical charges was not supported by evidence as to the specific treatments
provided, and where the employee apparently also treated for another condition with the same doctor
during all or part of the period in question, there was insufficient evidence to support an award of
reimbursement for the treatment charges billed.
Mathison v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 6/16/04
DOI: 4/16/02, 2/4/02, 8/15/01
Where the employee made no search for work for over 10 months after being released to return to
work with restrictions, and where the employer had twice earlier declined to provide work for the
employee within her restrictions, albeit on grounds that the employee's condition was not work
related, the compensation judge's denial of temporary total disability benefits on grounds that the
employee did not have a reasonable expectation of work with the employer and yet did not conduct
D-13 • COMPACT • August 2004
a reasonably diligent job search during the benefits period in question was not clearly erroneous and
Davidson v. SDW Holdings Corporation d/b/a SAPPI Fine Paper, 6/21/04
DOI: 5/25/02
that the employee's work activities for the employer were a substantial contributing cause of the
employee's Gillette injury.
Substantial evidence, including medical records and the employee's testimony, support the
compensation judge's finding that the employee had not reached maximum medical improvement as
of Oct. 9, 2002.
Rackow v. Midwest Coast Transportation, Inc., 6/23/04
DOI: 12/31/79
Practice and Procedure – Referral for Evidentiary Hearing
Where there was no real dispute over the fact that the employee had suffered a substantial change in
his medical condition since his settlement, but where there was conflicting evidence as to whether
that change was causally related to the employee's work injury, the employee's petition to vacate his
settlement on grounds of substantial change in condition was referred to the Office of Administrative
Hearings for an evidentiary hearing and findings, subject to appeal, on the causal relationship
between the evident post-settlement changes in the employee's condition and the employee's work
Majerle v. Forest Lake Chrysler, 6/25/04
DOI: 5/8/00
Permanent Partial Disability – Combined Ratings
Permanent Partial Disability – Knee
Minnesota Rules Part 5223.0510, supbs. 3B(1) and 3B(2)
Where the rule at issue clearly contemplated a 2 percent rating for an employee who had up to
50 percent of a meniscal cartilage removed and a 3 percent rating for an employee who had more
D-14 • COMPACT • August 2004
than 50 percent of that cartilage removed, and where the employee had already been awarded
compensation for a 3 percent impairment based on a previous surgical removal of more than 50
percent of the cartilage, the compensation judge properly denied the employee's claim for an
additional 2 percent impairment, notwithstanding the fact that the employee had undergone a second
surgical removal of less than 50 percent of the same cartilage.
Shamp v. Daybreak Foods, 6/25/04
DOI: 5/22/99
Rehabilitation – Discontinuance
Where the employee had not been successful in alleviating her wage loss after nearly four years
of placement assistance, and where there was vocational testimony indicating that additional skills
would enhance the employee's employability, substantial evidence supported the judge's decision to
amend the employee's rehabilitation plan to provide for exploration of retraining.
The compensation judge did not err in concluding that a dispute existed for purposes of establishing
eligibility for Roraff fees or in calculating the fee award on a contingent basis, based on the cost of
the disputed surgery, without regard to the Irwin factors, pursuant to Cahow v. Brookdale Motors, 61
W.C.D. 427, 438 (W.C.C.A. 2001).
D-15 • COMPACT • August 2004
• Constance M. Nitz v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, and Self-Insured/Gallagher
Bassett Services, Inc., and Twin Cities Spine Center, Intervenor, A04-306, April 28,
Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Jan. 27, 2004, affirmed without
• Steven G. Amunrud v. Advance United Expressway and MIGA/ASU Risk Management
Services, Ltd., A04-339, May 27, 2004
Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed Feb. 2, 2004, affirmed without
• Todd D. and Larry D. DeGraw v. Zenith Exteriors and General Casualty Companies,
and St. Croix Orthopedic P.A. and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Intervenors,
A04-595, June 29, 2004
Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 8, 2004, affirmed without
• James Schmidt v. Arrowhead Electric, and MN Rural Electric Trust/CompCost, A04-
604, June 29, 2004
Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 12, 2004, affirmed without
• Tamera M. Peterson v. Camilia Rose Convalescent Center (n/k/a Willows
Convalescent Center), and Lumbermen’s Underwriting Alliance, and Orthopedic
Medicine & Surgery, Ltd., and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota & Blue Plus,
Intervenors, A04-653, June 29, 2004
Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 17, 2004, affirmed without
D-16 • COMPACT • August 2004
• Michelle Hugill v. Benton County, and Self-Insured/MN Counties Insurance Trust/RSK
Co., and Allina/Sister Kenny Institute, Mickelson Rehab. Consultants, Third Party
Solutions, Inc., Noran Neurological Clinic, and Foley Physical Rehab., Inc., A04-598,
Decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 10, 2004, affirmed without
• Donald Publicover v. Voltelcon and Hartford Specialty Risk Services, A04-603,
D-17 • COMPACT • August 2004
Dokumen Serupa dengan Department of Labor: 0804wcca
Richard D. Ellis v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, 754 F.2d 884, 10th Cir. (1985)
ADR Case Extra
TAM Bytes, June 23, 2014
Seed Fungi
Nutritional Policies in the Health Sector
Alejandra Rojas Muro
api-243176962