Why Minn. Stat. § 176.021, Subd. 7 Should Be Repealed

If you’ve been through the Minnesota workers’ compensation system, you are probably well aware of the fact that it’s not always fair to injured workers. In fact, in many respects, the deck is stacked against injured workers.

Nothing is more frustrating than seeing an injured worker who gets shortchanged because of an innocent mistake, because of ambiguous language within the law, or because the benefits provided by workers’ compensation are simply inadequate to fully address the full extent of their losses.

January is usually when people make resolutions to end bad habits or to learn new good habits. I usually forget to make a resolution, or if I remember to make one, I forget about it within a day or two. Instead, this year, I’m going to take the opportunity to write about a provision within the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act that I’d like to see changed in 2012.

Major changes to the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act don’t happen often, and it’s usually a long process to make changes to the law. Nonetheless, I’d love to see the Minnesota legislature take up the challenge of making this change to the Minn. Work Comp. Act to make things just a little more fair for injured workers.

Repeal of Minn. Stat. §176.021, Subd. 7. 

This portion of the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act provides in relevant part, that:

If an employee covered by the Minnesota State Retirement System receives total and permanent disability benefits pursuant to section 352.113 or disability benefits pursuant to sections 352.95 and 352B.10, the amount of disability benefits shall be deducted from workers' compensation benefits otherwise payable. If an employee covered by the teachers retirement fund receives total and permanent disability benefits pursuant to section 354.48, the amount of disability benefits must be deducted from workers' compensation benefits otherwise payable. 

In plain language, what this statute says, at least according to the State, is that if you are a State worker and you’re eligible for MSRS disability benefits by virtue of a work-related injury, the State gets to reduce (or eliminate) your workers’ compensation benefits to the extent of one dollar for every dollar of MSRS disability benefits you receive. This provision, arguably, affects state corrections workers, state troopers, teachers, conservation officers, and almost all other state employees.

This statute is ambiguous, for one, because it doesn’t state which types of workers’ compensation benefits are subject to this offset. For example, if you’re receiving $500 a week in MSRS disability benefits, and you’re also eligible for $500 a week in workers’ compensation wage loss benefits, it’s the State’s position that you get zero workers’ compensation wage loss benefits. Arguably, the State could offset your entitlement to other types of workers’ compensation benefits, too, like permanent partial disability benefits, rehabilitation benefits, or even medical benefits. The plain language of the statute could theoretically allow the State to refuse to pay your medical bills to the extent of your MSRS disability benefits. By way of example, an injured worker who receives $1000 a month in MSRS disability benefits could, in theory, be required to pay the first $1000 of their workers' compensation medical bills before work comp kicks in, so that workers' entire monthly MSRS disability benefit could be wiped out by medical bills.

So what’s wrong with this? 

First off, MSRS disability benefits don’t cover 100% of your lost wages, so you’re just out of luck making up the difference between MSRS and your normal wage. Moreover, as noted above, while I've never seen the State try to offset anything except wage loss benefits, the language of the statute would clearly allow them to offset their obligation to pay other workers' compensation benefits, like PPD benefits, rehabilitation benefits, or even medical expense benefits.

Second, basically, state employees are paying for their own workers’ compensation insurance. State employees make contributions to MSRS, just like private-sector employees pay into social security. By offsetting its obligation to pay workers’ compensation benefits, the State is passing the cost of work-related injuries right back to the injured worker.

The other problem with this statute is that it unfairly discriminates against state employees. Only state employees are subject to this offset provision. There is another provision under the Workers’ Compensation Act, Minn. Stat. § 176.101, Subd. 4 that provides for coordination of workers’ compensation benefits and other governmental disability benefits, such as PERA and SSDI. That statute only allows the workers’ compensation insurer to take an offset if the injured worker is receiving PERA or SSDI disability, has been determined to be permanently totally disabled, and has been paid $25,000.00 in PTD benefits. Importantly, this provision applies only to permanent total disability benefits, not other types of wage loss benefits. 

Here’s an example of how this exactly how this unfairness can play out. You have a state trooper and a city police officer, with identical injuries, and identical entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. The state trooper receives MSRS disability benefits, and the police officer receives PERA disability benefits (which incidentally, are paid at the same rate). The police officer is entitled to receive both her workers’ compensation benefits, and her PERA benefits, subject to certain caps, above which PERA reduces the amount it pays, but the state trooper receives only his MSRS disability benefits. This makes no sense.

In my humble opinion, Minn. Stat. § 176.021, Subd. 7 is unconstitutional because it discriminates against state employees. Unfortunately, there is some rather old case law that supports the validity of the statute, although my arguments set forth above were not directly addressed by the Court, and this case law at least arguably supports the State’s position.

Simply repealing this section solves the problem.

Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 provides the normal offset rules that apply to injured workers who receive other governmental benefits, including SSDI and PERA. It can just as easily be applied to injured workers’ who receive MSRS disability benefits.

Moreover, the MSRS disability statutes already contain their own offset provisions, meaning that MSRS can reduce the amount of its disability payment if the combination of work comp. and disability benefits exceeds certain amounts. The MSRS offset provisions currently in existence within the disability statutes prevent overcompensation and double dipping.

Repeal Minn. Stat. § 176.021, Subd. 7. Problem solved. Statutory ambiguity eliminated and uniformity created. Fairness achieved.

If you’re a state employee, particularly if you’ve sustained a work-related injury, I encourage you to contact your state representatives and bring this issue to their attention. Fixing the problem is simple. Minn. Stat. § 176.021, Subd. 7 should be repealed.

If you have questions or concerns about your rights under Minnesota workers’ compensation law, call Meuser & Associate at 877-746-5680, or click here to send us an email to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation.

Applying for PERA Duty Disability Benefits: Five Easy Mistakes to Avoid

We represent many, many police officers and firefighters covered under the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Plan, for workers’ compensation claims, personal injury claims, and PERA disability claims.

If you are a Minnesota police officer or firefighter, and if you have a disability that is expected to prevent you from performing your normal duties as a police officer or firefighter for a period of at least a year, and if your disability “is the direct result of an injury incurred during, or a disease arising out of, the performance of normal duties or the actual performance of less frequent duties, either of which are specific to protecting the property and personal safety of others and that present inherent dangers that are specific to the positions covered by the public employees police and fire plan,” Minn. Stat. §353.01, Subd. 45 (2009), you may be eligible for PERA duty disability benefits.

PERA duty disability benefits start at a minimum of 60% of your average salary over your five highest-paid consecutive years of service. This is the equivalent to a retirement benefit based on 20 years of service. If you have in excess of 20 years of service, you will receive an additional 3% of your salary for every year beyond 20 years of service.

PERA regular disability benefits start at 45% of your salary, or the equivalent of 15 years of service. Police and Fire Plan members who have an illness or injury expected to prevent them from performing the normal duties of their position for a period of a year, but the injury or illness was not-work related, or does otherwise meet the definition of “Duty disability,” may be eligible for Regular Disability Benefits.

In addition PERA Police and Fire Plan members may also be eligible for continuation of health care coverage under Minn. Stat. §299A.465, if they also qualify for duty disability benefits. That means the Employer must continue to pay your health insurance premiums until age 65.

These benefits can be worth thousands and thousands of dollars! Meuser & Associate regularly represents PERA Police and Fire Plan Members, PERA Corrections Plan Members, MSRS State Corrections Plan Members, and State Troopers covered under MSRS, for duty disability applications and appeals, healthcare continuation under Minn. Stat. §299A.465 applications and appeals, and regular disability applications and appeals.

Unfortunately, we see a lot of folks make mistakes when they’re applying for these benefits, and then they have to retain us to appeal an adverse decision. Most often, people applying for PERA benefits get denied, or don’t get awarded the benefit they’re applying for because they made mistakes on the initial application. It’s easier (and cheaper) to get it right the first time you apply, than it is to appeal and try to fix some easily avoided mistakes you made on your initial application.

1. Schedule a time to meet with a PERA or MSRS retirement counselor before you start completing your application. They will explain the various types of disability benefits that are available to you, and explain the application process. Many times, they are also kind enough to point out potential issues they might spot with your claim.
2. You are generally required to submit reports from two doctors indicating that you are disabled from performing the duties of a firefighter or police officer for a period of at least a year. Bring a copy of your job duties to your appointment, and explain to your doctor exactly what they need to fill out. If your doctors don’t indicate on the forms that you can’t perform the duties of a police officer or firefighter for a period of at least one year, you will not be considered to be disabled. This seems self-explanatory, but submitting forms that indicate you're not disabled will not help you get approved. Unfortunately, I've seen people do this in at least three separate cases.
3. The PERA disability application form gives space for about one paragraph to explain how your injuries occurred, and another paragraph to summarize your medical treatment. Don’t be afraid to attach additional pages to explain precisely how your injury occurred, and the medical treatment you’ve received. The PERA application form doesn’t really indicate the statutory requirements to qualify for duty disability, i.e., that your injuries or illness was incurred while performing duties that are specific to protecting property or safety, and that present inherent dangers specific to police officers or firefighters. If you don't do an adequate job of explaining how your injury fits into this definition, you may be denied duty disability benefits.
4. If your injury occurred more than 2 years before your disability began, special rules apply, or at least that’s how PERA is interpreting the law. For example, if you had a back injury, tried conservative therapy, underwent surgery, then tried to return to full duty, only to realize a couple years later that it just isn’t going to work, you will need to show that your disability prevents you from performing your duties in the 90 days prior to your application. PERA has interpreted this to mean that if your injury was over 2 years prior to your application, and you pushed papers on light duty in the 90 days before you apply, you must show that your disability prevents you from doing those light duty assignments. In many cases, you may be better off waiting until 90 days after your light duty ends to apply for PERA benefits. This is a very case specific situation, but you certainly don’t want to get denied for either regular disability or duty disability benefits based on what, in our opinion, is poor wording in the language of the statute.
5. If your claim is denied by PERA, or if you get awarded regular disability benefits when you think you qualify for duty disability benefits, don’t blow the appeal deadline! Depending on the basis for the denial, if you do not appeal PERA's decision, you may be barred from applying again based on the same injury or condition. If you do appeal, you will have adequate time to put together the materials you need to dispute the determination. And don’t wait until the day your appeal is due to consult with an attorney! Don’t assume that PERA’s right if you are denied. We can advise you if you have a basis for an appeal.

We’ve represented many Minnesota police officers and firefighters in applying for PERA benefits, and in appealing adverse determinations. Here’s some examples of a few of our more recent successes:

• A young police officer sustained a shoulder injury several years ago while performing defensive tactics training. He had four surgeries to correct the problem with his shoulder, but kept going back to work. Last year, he seriously re-injured his shoulder while performing CPR, and underwent two more shoulder surgeries. Six shoulder surgeries later, and looking at a total shoulder replacement before age 40, his doctors finally convinced him that he can no longer perform the duties of a police officer. We completed his application for PERA duty disability benefits, which was approved within a matter of weeks, and he was also awarded healthcare continuation coverage under §299A.465.
• A firefighter was at the scene of a major traffic accident on a Minnesota interstate. He parked a firetruck to block traffic because of the extremely icy conditions. As he was getting out of the rig, he slipped on the icy running board, and got hung up on the door handle, jerking his shoulder. After numerous conservative treatments failed, his doctors ultimately told him he could not continue working as a firefighter. This firefighter was over the age of 55, and had more than 20 years of service, so he was not eligible for duty disability benefits. He was, however, eligible for healthcare continuation under §299A.465, which we applied for and secured on his behalf.
• A firefighter sustained a low back injury while performing CPR on a patient for an extended period of time. while his doctors determined that he was not a candidate for surgery, they ultimately concluded that he could not continue to safely perform the duties of a firefighter. We completed his application for PERA duty disability benefits, for which he was approved, and we also secured healthcare continuation benefits on his behalf.
• A young firefighter injured her back while carrying a piece of equipment about four years ago, and suffered a severe flare up about a year and a half ago. She was placed under restrictions and was forced to resign when the fire department had no light duty available. She applied for disability benefits, but was denied because all three doctors reports she submitted indicated that she would NOT be disabled as a firefighter for a period of at least a year. We appealed because it was clear that her doctors didn’t fully understand the forms they completed for her. She underwent an FCE that showed that she was not physically capable of performing the duties of a firefighter, her doctors completed new forms indicating that she was disabled from performing the duties of a firefighter for a period of one year, and one of her doctors wrote a detailed expert opinion about the causes of her condition. We submitted this additional evidence and requested an administrative hearing, but PERA reversed its decision, awarding her PERA regular disability benefits, based on the additional evidence we secured and submitted on her behalf.

If you’re considering applying for PERA or MSRS disability benefits, it’s wise to consult with an attorney. For folks that find us on the internet, we offer a free, no-obligation consultation. Make sure you let us know you found us online. If we don’t think you have a claim, we’ll tell you. If we think you have a claim, but see some potential issues, we’ll tell you what they are. If you have a slam dunk case, we’ll tell you so, and you can decide whether or not you need our assistance in applying. If you don’t want to deal with the headache, or are concerned about putting together all of the information you need, we can complete your application for you. If you simply want to learn about disability benefits as a “back-up” plan, we’re happy to discuss your options with you.

Contact Jen Yackley or Ron Meuser at 877-746-5680 or click here to send us an email to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation.

36 Minnesota State Troopers Hit On Minnesota’s Highways Since November

Minnesota State Trooper Brian Bammert was rear-ended by a van while on a traffic stop on Saturday, April 2, 2011 on Interstate 94 in Minneapolis. Trooper Bammert was transported to the hospital, treated and released. Trooper Bammert was expected to return to patrol duty on Wednesday, April 6^th.

According to WCCO, this was the second time Trooper Bammert has been hit while performing a traffic stop within six weeks.

Watch out for stopped emergency vehicles!

Since November 1, 2010, 36 State Troopers have been struck on Minnesota Highways. Last year, between November 2009 and April 2010, there were 14 Troopers struck on Minnesota roads.

Minnesota State Troopers and other emergency responders who sustain injuries as a result of a car accident while in the line of duty may be eligible for a variety of benefits, including workers’ compensation benefits, personal injury claims, or MSRS/PERA duty disability benefits.

Meuser & Associate represents dozens of police officers throughout the state of Minnesota, including several State Troopers, and we’re very knowledgeable about the special issues that arise in these cases.

For a free, no obligation consultation regarding your rights after a duty-related motor vehicle accident, call Ron or Jen at 877-746-5680 or click here to send us an email.

MN State Trooper Injured in Crash on I-94 on April 2, 2011

According to Kare11, a Minnesota State Trooper is recovering after a motorist struck his patrol car on Interstate 94 in Minneapolis around 8:00 p.m. Saturday, April 2, 2011, between 42nd and 49th Avenues.

Authorities state that the state trooper was conducting a traffic stop and was seated inside his patrol car when the collision occurred. Both the trooper and the driver of the car were transported to the hospital.

Traffic accidents accounted for 73 of 160 police in-the-line of duty deaths in 2010. Traffic accidents have replaced guns as the greatest risk to police officers.
Police officers and State Troopers who sustain injuries as a result of an on-duty auto collision may be entitled to a variety of benefits. First, these types of injuries are covered by Minnesota workers’ compensation. Workers’ compensation benefits include medical expenses, wage loss benefits, rehabilitation benefits, and permanent partial disability benefits.

In addition to workers’ compensation benefits, Minnesota police officers and state troopers who sustain injuries as a result of a motor vehicle collision caused by someone else’s negligence or fault may also be able to bring a civil liability personal injury claim against the at-fault party for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

If a Minnesota police officer or State Trooper sustains career-ending injuries, he or she may also be entitled to Public Employees Retirement Association duty disability benefits or Minnesota State Retirement System duty disability benefits, and continuation of healthcare under Minn. Stat. 299A.465.

Police officers should be especially particular in choosing a workers’ compensation, personal injury, or PERA or MSRS lawyer. Make sure your lawyer understands all the benefits available to you. Meuser & Associate has represented dozens of police officers throughout the state of Minnesota for workers’ compensation claims, personal injury claims, MSRS and PERA claims. Make sure you don’t miss out on benefits you’re entitled to. For a free, no-obligation consultation with one of our workers’ compensation lawyers, call us at 877-746-5680 or click here to send us an email.

Visit us at MeuserLaw.com!

Continuation of Healthcare Coverage and Minnesota State Troopers

This article is a follow up to an article I wrote in February of 2009 regarding continued healthcare coverage for State Troopers under Minn.Stat. §299A.465.

All firefighters and police offices in the state of Minnesota are eligible for continued healthcare insurance coverage if they receive duty disability benefits as a result of an injury in the line of duty. Continued healthcare insurance coverage means that the employer must continue to pay the employer’s share of health insurance premiums. Given the skyrocketing cost of health care insurance, this benefit is worth thousands of dollars.

In July 2008, the Minnesota legislature revised Minnesota Statute §299A.465 to make the process more streamlined for disabled police officers and firefighters to receive continued healthcare benefits. Unfortunately, the Minnesota Legislature screwed up when it re-wrote the statute. They forgot to include members of the Minnesota State Patrol.

We represented a State Trooper who was disabled in the line of duty for his workers’ compensation case. He was approved for duty disability benefits under MSRS (Minnesota State Retirement System), but when he applied for continued healthcare coverage, he was informed that he wasn’t eligible for this benefit. We filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the State of Minnesota, arguing that State Troopers are in fact covered under Minn.Stat. §299A.465 and they are entitled to continued healthcare insurance, just like all other police officers in the state.

Shortly thereafter, due in part to our efforts, the Minnesota legislature revised the statute to include Minnesota State Troopers, who they had inadvertently left out in the 2008 version of the statute. In the meantime, however, our State Trooper client had to pay out of pocket for his healthcare insurance, and incurred additional expenses due to his high deductible. Recently, we reached a settlement with the State on behalf of our State Trooper client. The State agreed to reinstate his healthcare insurance coverage that he should have received as soon as his duty disability benefits were approved. They also agreed to reimburse him for the extra costs he incurred due to having to purchase his own healthcare insurance.

If you are a Minnesota State Trooper, or any police officer in the state of Minnesota, and you’ve sustained an injury on the job, contact Meuser & Associates, P.A., for a free, no-obligation consultation to find out what benefits you may be entitled to under workers’ compensation, PERA or MSRS duty disability, and continued healthcare coverage under Minn. Stat. §299A.465. Call Ron or Jen at 877-746-5680 to schedule a free consultation or click here to send us an email.

Visit our website at MeuserLaw.com!

Can I Receive Workers’ Compensation and PERA Duty Disability at the Same Time?

Yes! In most cases, you can receive PERA disability benefits and workers’ compensation benefits at the same time.

Police officers, firefighters, and other public employees who receive PERA disability pension benefits are usually also entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

PERA allows a disabled firefighter or police officer to receive duty disability benefits plus workers' compensation wage loss benefits, up to a total of his or her salary at the time of the disability, or the current salary of the position, whichever is greater. PERA reduces the benefit amount dollar-for-dollar if a combination of the two benefits exceeds this limit.

If the disabled firefighter or police officer is able to work in a non-police-and-fire position, that individual can receive duty disability benefits plus re-employment earnings plus workers’ compensation wage loss benefits, up to a total of 125% his or her salary at the time of the disability or the current salary of the position. PERA reduces its benefit payment for $1 of each $3 earned in excess of those limitations.

If a firefighter, police officer, corrections officer, or other public employee sustains an injury or a combination of injuries that prevents that person from returning to his or her former career, he or she may be entitled to both workers’ compensation benefits and disability pension benefits under the Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA), the Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association (MFRA), the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund (MERF), the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS), and any other local retirement association.

If you’re a firefighter, police officer, or corrections officer, and you sustained an injury in the course and scope of your duties that will keep you from returning to your former position for a period of at least a year, you should strongly consider applying for duty disability benefits.

Unfortunately, if you’re a member of PERA, MSRS, or any other local or state retirement association, you’re probably keenly aware of the fact that these pension funds are woefully under-funded. Because of this issue, in the past few years, the Minnesota legislature has drastically changed the requirements to qualify for duty disability benefits.

In years past, if you had a career-ending work-related injury, you would almost certainly qualify for duty disability benefits under PERA, any of the local relief associations, and under MSRS. Under the most recent law changes, however, you now need to show that your disability “is the direct result of an injury incurred during, or a disease arising out of, the performance of normal duties or the actual performance of less frequent duties, either of which are specific to protecting the property and personal safety of others and that present inherent dangers that are specific to the positions covered by the public employees police and fire plan.” Minn. Stat. §353.01, Subd. 41 (2009). The requirements for duty disability under the PERA corrections plan, MFRA, MSRS, and other local plans are virtually identical to the requirements under the police and fire plan.

In plain English, what this means is that a disabled police officer, firefighter, or corrections officer must now prove not only that the injury occurred in the line of duty, but that the injury occurred during the performance of duties that involve protecting property or safety, and that are inherently dangerous. What does that mean? In all honesty, no one is entirely certain. This version of the law hasn’t been around long enough for any cases to make their way through Minnesota’s higher courts.

What we can say is that in reviewing duty disability applications, PERA is taking a very strict reading of the statute, which basically means that they are frequently denying applicants who are injured performing duties that are not “hazardous” enough. Obviously, if you are shot by a suspect, or burned in a fire, those are hazardous duties. And, slipping and falling on a patch of ice on the way into work is probably not hazardous enough. But there’s a lot of room between those two extremes.

Here are some examples of police officers, firefighters, and corrections officers we’ve assisted with applications and appeals for PERA and MSRS duty disability benefits:

• A corrections officer suffered a torn rotator cuff in her shoulder while hanging up an evidence bag doing intake of an inmate. She was initially denied duty disability benefits. We appealed, and PERA reversed its decision and awarded her duty disability benefits.

• A firefighter injured a disc in her low back while lifting a heavy patient on a stretcher. She returned to work, but re-injured her back when she fell off a fire truck while doing inventory. PERA initially denied her application for duty disability benefits, but reversed its decision when we appealed and awarded her duty disability benefits.

• MSRS denied duty disability benefits to a corrections officer who developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after witnessing a traumatic incident involving prisoners. We appealed, and MSRS reversed its decision and awarded her duty disability benefits.

• A firefighter suffered several knee injures over the years, the last of which was sustained while he was carrying heavy fans around at the scene of a fire. We completed his application for benefits, and PERA awarded him duty disability benefits.

So why does it matter? Under PERA, MSRS, and other relief associations, the rate of pay for duty disability benefits is significantly higher than “regular” disability benefits. Over the course of several years, this can add up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, police officers and firefighters who are awarded duty disability benefits under PERA, MSRS, or a local plan are entitled to continuation of healthcare coverage, which means your employer continues to pay their share of your healthcare premiums. That’s a huge financial benefit!

At Meuser & Associate, we believe that the vast majority of duties performed by police officers, firefighters, and corrections officers are hazardous, and we’ve successfully represented a number of police officers, firefighters, and corrections officers in both their workers’ compensation cases and for PERA and MSRS duty disability applications and appeals.

It is important that your workers’ compensation lawyer is familiar with the duty disability laws under PERA, MSRS, and other local retirement associations, otherwise, you could be leaving thousands of dollars in benefits on the table.

When we meet with a new client who is a firefighter, police officer, or corrections officer, we evaluate not only their workers’ compensation case, but we also evaluate any potential claims for PERA or MSRS disability benefits. We will give you an honest assessment on the likelihood of succeeding both on your claim for workers’ compensation benefits and your claim for disability benefits.

At Meuser & Associate, when we evaluate your claim for duty disability benefits, we always give you the option of preparing the application on your own. We’re happy to provide you with guidance to give you the best chance of succeeding on your application, while allowing you to complete it on your own. Alternatively, we can prepare your application and all necessary documentation for you. If you’ve been denied, we can also assist you with an appeal. If you applied on your own and received notice that your application for duty disability benefits was denied, you need to act fast! There’s a very limited time within which to complete an appeal.

Meuser & Associate, P.A. provides assistance with disability pension benefits on an hourly fee basis. For a FREE consultation, click here to send us an email, or call us at 877-746-5680 to speak with attorneys Ron or Jen.

Visit us at MeuserLaw.com!

Move Over! Almost Fifty Minnesota State Troopers Hit By Other Vehicles Since December 2008

Minnesota state law requires that motorists move over at least one lane for emergency vehicles with activated emergency lights. If a motorist cannot safely move over, they are required to reduce their speed. Failure to move over can result in a citation, or even worse, an accident.

On March 11, Kare 11 reported that 48 Minnesota State Patrol squad vehicles have been struck on Minnesota roads since December 2008. Apparently, this is twice as many accidents as there were during this time last year.

Moving over a lane is especially important when navigating Minnesota’s snowy, slushy, or icy roads in the late winter and early spring months. It’s very easy to lose control or to have difficulty stopping when road conditions are less than ideal.

If you hit a stopped State Patrol car, you not only risk injuring yourself, but you risk hurting the state patrol officer and other drivers stopped on the side of the road. At the very least, you risk a citation.

State Troopers who are injured as the result of motor vehicle accidents in the course and scope of their employment may be entitled to a number of benefits. First, they may be entitled to benefits through workers’ compensation. They may also have a civil liability claim against the driver who hit them. If the officer’s injuries are serious and disabling, the officer may also be entitled to MSRS disability benefits.

If you’re a state trooper who sustained injuries as the result of a motor vehicle and would like to know what benefits you may be entitled to, contact Meuser & Associates at 877-746-5680 or click here to send us an email to schedule a free consultation.

We have successfully represented a number of state troopers for workers’ compensation benefits, civil liability claims, and MSRS disability benefits.

Visit our website at MeuserLaw.com!

MN Firefighters and Police Officers and Work-Related Heart Attacks

Some occupations are more stressful than others, including the occupations of firefighter and police officer. Studies have shown that police officers are more susceptible to high blood pressure, heart disease, and heart attacks. The Minnesota Legislature has recognized the increased risks firefighters and police officers are exposed to in the course and scope of their job duties. As such, the legislature enacted Minn.Stat. 176.011, Subd. 15(b), which provides, in pertinent part:

If immediately preceding the date of disablement or death, an employee was employed on active duty with an organized fire or police department of any municipality, as a member of the Minnesota State Patrol, conservation officer service, state crime bureau, as a forest officer by the Department of Natural Resources, state correctional officer, or sheriff or full-time deputy sheriff of any county, and the disease is that of myocarditis, coronary sclerosis, pneumonia or its sequel, and at the time of employment such employee was given a thorough physical examination by a licensed doctor of medicine, and a written report thereof has been made and filed with such organized fire or police department, with the Minnesota State Patrol, conservation officer service, state crime bureau, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Corrections, or sheriff's department of any county, which examination and report negatived any evidence of myocarditis, coronary sclerosis, pneumonia or its sequel, the disease is presumptively an occupational disease and shall be presumed to have been due to the nature of employment.

What this means is that when an active duty firefighter, police officer, forest officer, correction officer, or sheriff suffers myocarditis, coronary sclerosis, or pneumonia, those diseases are presumed to be occupational diseases, so long as a pre-employment physical did not indicate any presence of those types of diseases.

Occupational diseases are covered under Minnesota Workers’ compensation, and victims of occupational diseases are eligible for medical benefits, wage loss benefits, permanency benefits, and rehabilitation benefits.

This statutory presumption, however, does not mean that the workers’ compensation insurance company will automatically admit liability when a firefighter or police officer has suffered a heart attack or other covered condition. In fact, in our experience, insurance companies tend to ignore the presumption all together. If they do recognize the presumption, the employer and/or insurer may still try to rebut the statutory presumption by arguing that the heart attack, myocarditis, coronary sclerosis, pneumonia, or myocardial infarction was caused by something other than work-related stress. Commonly they point to other factors, such as a history of smoking, poor diet, family history, non-work-related stressors, or obesity. If you’re a Minnesota firefighter, police officer, corrections officer, sheriff, or forest officer, and you've experienced a heart attack or other heart condition because of your work, you should consult an experienced workers’ compensation attorney to make sure you get the workers’ compensation benefits you are entitled to.

In addition to workers’ compensation benefits, including medical benefits, wage loss benefits, permanency benefits, and rehabilitation benefits, if the police officer or firefighter cannot return to his or her former occupation, there may be other benefits available. Additional benefits may include PERA, MFRA, or MSRS duty-disability pension benefits, and healthcare continuation benefits under Minn.Stat. 299A.465.

Meuser & Associates has successfully represented several police officers and firefighters who suffered work-related heart attacks in claims for workers’ compensation benefits, duty-disability benefits, and healthcare continuation benefits. Call us at 877-746-5680 or click here to send us an email to schedule a free consultation.

Visit our website at MeuserLaw.com!

Minnesota State Highway Patrol and Continued Healthcare Coverage Under Minn.Stat. Sec. 299A.465

In July 2008, Minnesota Statute Sec. 299A.465, which provides continued healthcare insurance coverage for Minnesota firefighters or police officers who are disabled in the line of duty, was revised to streamline the process for procuring this benefit.

Under the old law, a disabled police officer or firefighter had to apply to a Panel for a determination of whether the firefighter’s or officer’s professional duties and responsibilities put the officer or firefighter at risk for the type of injury or illness actually sustained. Unfortunately, the Panel frequently erroneously denied benefits to applicants.

Under the new law, the Panel has been eliminated. Now, an individual who has been approved for PERA (Public Employees Retirement Association) duty disability benefits is supposed to be automatically approved for Continued Health Insurance Coverage. Members of local relief associations, such as the Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association (MFRA) who are approved for a duty disability pension are directed to apply for a determination by the Executive Director of PERA for a determination as to their eligibility for continued health insurance coverage under Minnesota Statute §299A.465.

Almost as soon as the changes to the law went into effect, however, there were problems. We currently represent a gentleman who was a Minnesota State Highway Patrol Officer. As the result of an in-the-line-of-duty injury, he is unable to return to his job as a State Trooper. He was approved for a duty disability pension by the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS), but when he inquired about continued health insurance coverage under Minn. Stat. §299A.465, he was told that he was not eligible for this benefit. Unfortunately, the new version of the law does not specifically address members of MSRS, which includes Minnesota State Troopers, and it is apparently the position of the State of Minnesota that State Troopers are no longer entitled to this benefit.

We have commenced litigation on behalf of our client to obtain continued healthcare insurance coverage under Minn. Stat. Section 299A.465. Prior to the change in the law, Minnesota State Troopers were eligible for this benefit. Moreover, we feel that the legislature clearly did not intend to exclude the State Patrol from entitlement to a benefit that is available to all other police officers in the State of Minnesota.

If you are a Minnesota State Trooper who has been approved for MSRS duty disability benefits, but you have not received continued health care insurance under Minnesota Statute §299A.465, call us at 877-746-5680 or click here to email us here for a free consultation. Note that we provide services in conjunction with continued health care coverage on an hourly basis rather than on a contingency basis.

UPDATE: The Minnesota legislature has amended Minnesota Statute §299A.465 to specifically include Minnesota State Troopers. We recently obtained a settlement on behalf of a disabled Minnesota State Trooper who was improperly denied healthcare continuation coverage under the old version of the statute. The State agreed to reinstate his health insurance coverage and to reimburse him for the extra out-of-pocket expenses he incurred as a result of the State's refusal to continue his insurance.

Visit us at MeuserLaw.com!