Court Opinion

ID: 9524486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:53:13.075915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:36.840294
License: Public Domain

WAHL, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that the 1983 legislature’s deletion of the last sentence of subdivision 2 of section 176.101 evinces a clear legislative intent to eliminate temporary partial benefits to unemployed claimants. As we noted in Gasper v. Northern Star Company, 422 N.W.2d 727, 730 (Minn.1988), the legislature’s intent with respect to temporary partial benefits is far from obvious. Even as amended, subdivision 2 provides benefits for temporarily partially disabled workers; and nothing in the act specifically limits such benefits to only those partially disabled workers who are employed.
At one time, temporary partial disability compensation, which was payable to all temporary partially disabled workers was calculated on the basis of earning capacity. Minn.Stat. § 176.11(b) (1941). See Enrico v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 199 Minn. 190, 271 N.W. 456 (1937). The statutory provision was subsequently amended to provide that the commission would fix the rate of compensation for unemployed temporarily disabled workers; and this rate was to be based on the percentage of disability. Temporary partial disability compensation for other workers was still calculated on the basis of earning capacity. 1945 Minn. Laws ch. 389, Sec. 1. The provision was again amended to provide that unemployed temporarily partially disabled workers, who made a diligent effort to find work, would be paid at the temporary total rate. Temporary partial disability compensation for other workers continued to be based on earning capacity. 1974 Minn.Laws ch. 486, Sec. 2. In 1983, the sentence making reference to the calculation of benefits for unemployed workers was eliminated. Unlike the majority, however, I am not convinced that this deletion demonstrates a legislative intent to entirely eliminate weekly benefits for temporarily partially disabled workers who are unemployed because of their work-related disabilities.
In my view, a fair reading of this deletion leads to the conclusion that the amendment merely changed the basis for the calculation of benefits for temporarily partially disabled unemployed workers. Instead of calculating benefits at the temporary total rate subject to a diligent work search, such benefits are to be calculated on the basis of earning capacity. We have consistently held the calculation of benefits under that portion of subdivision 2 left after amendment is to be based on earning capacity, not post-injury wages. Owens v. Pako Corp., 386 N.W.2d 711, 715 (Minn.1986); Olson v. Midwest Printing Co., 347 N.W.2d 43, 46 (Minn.1984); Morehouse v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 313 N.W.2d 8, 10 (Minn.1981). In view of the history of the much disputed statutory provision, I believe that if the legislature intended benefits for temporarily partially disabled workers to be limited only to those who have managed to find employment, it would have said so. I feel that it is improper for us to supply the limitation. Gasper, 422 N.W.2d at 730.
The majority appears to imply that providing temporary partial benefits for temporarily partially disabled and unemployed, workers will “frustrate” the overall legislative intent of 1983 amendments to the act. However, it seems to me that the allowance of temporary partial benefits to all temporarily partially disabled workers promotes the goal of the 1983 amendments to quickly reintegrate injured workers back into the workforce by economically forcing the employer to get the employee back into the workforce (either with the employer or elsewhere) or else pay significantly greater benefits.
For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that under subdivision 2 of section 176.101 as amended in 1983, all temporarily partially disabled workers are eligible for weekly benefits to be calculated on the basis of earning capacity as distinguished from post-injury wages.