Court Opinion

ID: 9720232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:21:24.583177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:14.467158
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(dissenting).
I am compelled to dissent. The only justification for the appealingly fair result reached by the majority is to interpret paragraph 6 of the September 1, 1967, stipulation of the parties as intending to authorize the commission to make an award of benefits for “permanent total disability in lieu of and in modification of” its previous March 4, 1965, award of benefits for temporary total disability.
Assuming such interpretation is unjustified, the reasons assigned for the result reached by the majority, in my opinion, conflict with the statutory scheme of our compensation act, which (1) clearly intends that temporary total disability and permanent total disability be regarded as separate and distinct disabilities, and (2) expressly and, I believe, unambiguously authorizes a setoff of O. A. S. I. benefits only after the employee has received compensation benefits of more than $18,000 for permanent total disability. That the two types of disability are intended to be distinct cannot be doubted. In the case of temporary total disability, benefits are limited to a period of not to exceed 350 weeks, while benefits for total permanent disability are unlimited except as the employer-insurer is permitted to set off O. A. S. I. benefits after payment of $18,000 in compensation benefits. Although admittedly arguable, I cannot interpret Minn. St. 1961, § 176.101, subd. 5, defining total disability, as comprehending other than a condition of total permanent disability. 1 must concede that my views could result in unequal awards of benefits as between two totally disabled hypothetical employees, one whose disability is found to be permanent and total from its *148inception and the other whose total disability is initially found to be temporary but thereafter established as permanent. However, in my view, such was intended by the legislature. In such cases of temporary total disability, the employer-insurer, anticipating a right of setoff for O. A. S. I. benefits, has the option of either acknowledging or seeking adjudication of permanent total disability when supporting medical evidence exists therefor or taking the risk that the employee’s condition of temporary total disability may by reason of healing or cure ultimately entitle him to no more than a limited award for permanent partial disability.
If there is inequity in this interpretation of the statute, which I doubt, the legislature and not this court is in the best position to correct it.
I would either interpret the stipulation of the parties as indicated or reverse.