Opinion ID: 1662181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: WCCA Rationale

Text: Despite our conclusion that the WCCA correctly reversed the compensation judge's finding of MMI, the rationale of the WCCA's decision needs to be addressed. The WCCA remanded the case to determine whether the employee's disability was substantially greater due to his pre-existing disability. The basis of the remand was that the substantially greater issue is relevant to MMI. The statute that the WCCA relied on provides: If an employee incurs personal injury and suffers disability that is substantially greater, because of a preexisting physical impairment, than what would have resulted from the personal injury alone, the employer shall pay all compensation provided by this chapter, but the employer shall be reimbursed from the special compensation fund   . Minn.Stat. § 176.131, subd. 1 (1986). As argued by the relator and the Special Compensation Fund, this provision does not entitle the worker to any additional benefits; it is a reimbursement provision. It allows an employer who hires an employee with a disability to seek reimbursement from the Special Compensation Fund if certain statutory requirements are met. Whether the employee's disability is substantially greater because of a pre-existing condition will be addressed when New Mech's Petition for Contribution or Reimbursement is heard. The decision of the WCCA erroneously makes a MMI finding dependent on a determination of Special Fund liability. Although an apportionment of liability between the employers/insurers and the Special Fund will eventually occur, that issue is separate from the current discontinuance question and the WCCA remand was, therefore, inappropriate. Accordingly, the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part.