Source: http://mn.gov/law-library-stat/briefs/c8014sc.html
Timestamp: 2018-08-14 07:06:20
Document Index: 284378618

Matched Legal Cases: ['§176', '§268', '§176', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§268']

Briefs filed in Wanda J. Schmidgall, petitioner, Appellant, vs. FilmTec Corp, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.
CASE NAME: Wanda J. Schmidgall, petitioner, Appellant, vs. FilmTec Corp, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at C8-01-4
CITATION: 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 2002)
When an employer has a policy that requires employees to report a work injury on the same shift in which it occurs, is an employee guilty of "misconduct" disqualifying her from unemployment benefits if she reports an injury one day after it occurs but well within the 30 days permitted by Minn. Stat. §176.141? The Court of Appeals held in the affirmative. Apposite Cases: Tilseth v. Minn. Dept. of Manpower Services, 204 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. 1973). McGowan v. Executive Express Transp. Enters., Inc., 420 N. W.2d 592 (Minn. 1988). Sandstrom v. Douglas Machine Corp., 372 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. App. 1985). Lassila v. T. R. M. Services Inc., (Minn. App. May 30, 2000) (unpublished). Apposite Statutes: Minn. Stat. §268.095, subds. 4 and 6. Minn. Stat. §176.141.
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT FILMTEC CORPORATION'S BRIEF:
Was the commissioner's representative arbitrary and unreasonable in deciding that Wanda Schmidgall's three violations of FilmTec Corporation's injury reporting rule over a ten-month period constituted employment misconduct as defined by Minn. Stat. § 268.095, surd. 6, where Schmidgall received training and progressive discipline after the first two violations? Both the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Representative of the Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Economic Security properly found that Wanda Schmidgall's three violations of FilmTec Corporation's injury reporting rule constituted misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6. Apposite cases and statutory provisions: Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 4, 6; McGowan v. Executive Express Transp. Enters., Inc., 402 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. 1988); Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1996); Sandstrom v. Douglas Mach. Co., 372 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Whether the record reasonably supports the commissioner's representative's decision that the relator committed employment misconduct by failing to comply with an employer rule requiring reporting accidents and injuries on the same shift they occur? The Court of Appeals decided in the affirmative.
Whether the statutory definition of employment misconduct in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (Supp. 1999): (1) codifies the definition adopted by the Supreme Court in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973), as argued by the relator in her brief here; or (2) repeals and supersedes Tilseth, as the commissioner would have argued had the issue been raised in the Court of Appeals? The Court of Appeals did not decide this question, because it was not raised or argued in that court by the relator.
Whether there is a conflict between the Workers Compensation and the Unemployment Insurance laws, because the former allows an injured person up to 30 days to report an injury, while the latter would allow an applicant for benefits to be disqualified for violation of an employer same-shift reporting rule for accidents and injuries? The Court of Appeals held in the negative.
Whether the employer's same-shift reporting rule is reasonable? The Court of Appeals held in the affirmative. Most apposite statutes: Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (Supp. 1999); Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(e) (Supp. 1999). Most apposite cases: Tuffy v. Knitcraft, 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995); Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1966); Sivertson v. Sims Security. Inc., 390 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. App. 1986), rev. denied, (Minn., Aug. 20, 1986); Sandstrom v. Douglas Machine Corp., 372 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. App. 1985).
Minn. Stat. §268.095 does not define misconduct as a "violation of an employer's rule, regulation, or policy."
The department's application of the statute to Schmidgall omits the "Right To Expect" standard.