Court Opinion

ID: 9717804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:10:32.121525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:55.509565
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Yetka and for these additional reasons:
(1) Under the majority holding an employee would be required to seek permanent total disability benefits prematurely.
(2) The intent of the legislature to provide supplementary benefits for a totally disabled employee “for the remainder of the total disablement” cannot be defeated by a narrow reading of “injury * * * for which benefits are payable.” Section 176.-132, subdivisions 2 and 3, indicates there are employees not currently receiving benefits who are nevertheless eligible for supplementary benefits. Subdivision 1(a) cannot be read as requiring current eligibility for basic benefits to establish eligibility for supplementary benefits if the employee, as here, suffers an ongoing total disability. If the legislature intended “present entitlement” to be a condition precedent to supplemental benefits, it could have modified the words “are payable” to “are currently payable” or “are currently being paid.” It did not, and therefore no limitation exists.
(3)The issue in this case is one that should be properly addressed by the legislature as it grapples with revisions of the workers’ compensation laws.