Opinion ID: 1696996
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alcozer's employee status is consistent with purpose of the Act

Text: Because workfare workers are similarly situated to regular workers, it is both logical and consistent with the purposes of the Act to include these workers under the Act's protective umbrella. Workers' compensation is social legislation, providing a measure of security to workers injured on the job, with the burden of that expense considered a proportionate part of the cost of production. Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., 509 N.W.2d 373, 376 (Minn.1993). The whole scheme is one of reciprocal concessions by the employer and employee. Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 120-21, 257 N.W.2d 679, 684 (1977). An injured employee is guaranteed compensation from his or her employer for work-related injuries regardless of the employee's fault or the employer's lack of fault, in exchange for forfeiting the right to sue the employer in tort. Minn. Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co., 574 N.W.2d 54, 58 (1998) (citing Lambertson, 312 Minn. at 120-21, 257 N.W.2d at 684). In most other circumstances, the employee retains his or her common law right to recover in tort from a negligent third party. Minn. Brewing, 574 N.W.2d at 58. Workers' compensation provides support for workers disabled by compensable injuries during periods of actual disability and for their dependents in the event of a work-related death, together with hospital, medical, and funeral expenses. If the injury left the worker with some permanent bodily impairment, compensation for that impairment has been allowed regardless whether the worker sustained a reduction in wages. O'Mara v. State, Univ. of Minn., 501 N.W.2d 603, 606 (Minn.1993) (citations omitted). Liability on the part of an employer or the insurer for disability of a temporary total, temporary partial, and permanent total nature shall be considered as a continuing product and part of the employee's inability to earn or reduction in earning capacity due to injury or occupational disease and compensation is payable accordingly, subject to section 176.101. Minn.Stat. § 176.021, subd. 3 (2000). With the exception of bodily impairment and medical payments, practically all benefits under workers' compensation are calculated as a percentage of the employee's average weekly wage. The object of this wage determination is to arrive at a fair approximation of [the employee's] probable future earning power which has been impaired or destroyed because of the injury. Knotz v. Viking Carpet, 361 N.W.2d 872, 874 (1985) (quoting Sawczuk v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 312 N.W.2d 435, 437-38 (Minn.1981) (alteration in original) (citations omitted)). When evidence of an employee's past performance does not exist, an employee's probable productive capacity may be gauged by the wages paid to one doing similar work. Berry v. Walker Roofing Co., 473 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn.1991) (citing Johnson v. D.B. Rosenblatt, Inc., 265 Minn. 427, 429, 122 N.W.2d 31, 33 (1963)). The PRWORA and MFIP are predicated on the assumption that workfare workers can and should be required to work in exchange for their benefits. Diller, supra at 19. Given this presumption of a probable productive capacity, there is absolutely no justification for denying workfare workers compensation for any future earning power that is impaired or destroyed because of an injury that is causally related to the workfare work. Indeed, it is inconsistent with the purpose of the Act to treat workfare workers differently when they are required to work in exchange for their benefits and their future earning power can be impaired or destroyed due to a workplace injury. This is especially troublesome in light of the fact that workfare workers are in more need of protection than regular workers due to their lack of mobility and low bargaining power. See Vadim Mahmoudov, Are Workfare Participants Employees?: Legal Issues Presented by a Two-Tiered Labor Force, 1998 Ann. Surv. Am. L. 349, 385 (1998).