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 § 176.021, Subd. 7 Should Be Repealed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.

Jen Yackley and Ron Meuser Speak at Annual Minnesota Conservation Officer’s Association Meeting

Ron and I had the honor of being invited to speak at the Annual Minnesota Conservation Officer’s Association meeting in St. Cloud on December 1, 2011. We gave a short presentation and held a question and answer session. We also had the pleasure of meeting several conservation officers and Mr. Bruce Lawrence, president of the MNCOA.

Our talk addressed the importance of reporting your injuries, making sure you plan ahead if you're suffering from an injury or condition that may prevent you from returning to your career as a conservation officer, and hearing loss claims.  

Most members of the MNCOA are sworn law enforcement officers of the Minnesota DNR enforcement division. As peace officers, Minnesota conservation officers are subject to many of the same dangers as local police officers – injuries from altercations with suspects, injuries from dealing with dangerous individuals, injuries sustained while pursuing suspects. Conservation officers also face some unique dangers associated with performing a substantial portion of their enforcement activities outdoors – injuries from ATV and snowmobile accidents, slip and fall accidents due to rough outdoor terrain, exposure to the elements, and animal and insect bites.

Minnesota conservation officers are eligible for workers’compensation benefits, including medical benefits, wage loss benefits, permanency benefits, and rehabilitation benefits for on-the-job injuries.

As licensed peace officers, Minnesota conservation officers are also eligible for MSRS duty disability benefits and continuation of healthcare insurance under Minn. Stat. §299A.265 for in-the-line-of-duty injuries expected to prevent that officer from performing his or her normal duties for a period of a year or more. 

We STRONGLY recommend that if you are a Minnesota conservation officer, or any other peace officer in the State of Minnesota, and you have a work-related injury, and you are concerned about your ability to continue performing your job, BEFORE you make any major decisions, talk to a qualified workers’ compensation lawyer that is also knowledgeable about MSRS and PERA duty disability benefits. There are things you can do to maximize your eligibility for both your workers’ compensation benefits, and your MSRS benefits. Unfortunately, there are also simple mistakes you can make that can cost you thousands and thousands of dollars.

We are happy to provide a FREE, NO-OBLIGATION consultation to discuss your workers’ compensation benefits, as well as your eligibility for MSRS and/or PERA duty disability benefits. 

Before you make any decisions about retirement or leaving the DNR on a medical disability, talk to us! Call Meuser & Associate at 877-746-5680 or click here to send us an email to schedule a time to speak with Jen Yackley or Ron Meuser about your rights.

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 Under Minn. Statute. 299A.465 When You're Over Age 55

Minnesota firefighters and police officers who are disabled in the line of duty may be entitled to duty disability pension benefits under PERA. 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 entitled to these benefits.

In addition, under Minn. Stat. §299A.465, if you qualify for duty disability benefits, you also qualify for continued health insurance through your employer. This means that your employer is responsible for continued payment for your insurance coverage. Obviously, this is a huge benefit, the value of which can exceed tens of thousands of dollars over the course of several years.

Unfortunately, if a PERA member becomes disabled after reaching age 55, he or she is not eligible for duty disability benefits. However, firefighters or police officers who meet the definition of duty disability, but don’t qualify for duty disability benefits because they’ve reached age 55 are still eligible for continued healthcare coverage under Minn. Stat. Sec. 299A.465.

If you’re a Minnesota firefighter or police officer who is disqualified from receiving PERA duty disability benefits because you’ve reached age 55, it is worth submitting an application to PERA for a determination as to whether you qualify for continuation of healthcare coverage under Minn. Stat. §299A.465. Continued employer contributions toward your health insurance until age 65 is worth tens of thousands of dollars, if not more.

Meuser & Associates has represented dozens of police officers and firefighters from all over the state of Minnesota for workers’ compensation claims, and we have helped dozens of police officers and firefighters complete applications for PERA duty disability benefits, appeal unfavorable determinations, and apply for continued healthcare coverage under §299A.465. In fact, Meuser & Associates successfully represented four police officers and firefighters at the Minnesota Court of Appeals regarding disputes over continuation of healthcare coverage.

For a FREE, no-obligation consultation regarding your entitlement to PERA duty disability benefits and/or continuation of healthcare insurance under §299A.465, contact Meuser & Associates at 877-746-5680 or click here to send us an email to speak with Ron or Jen.

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!

Meuser & Associates, P.A., Wins at the Minnesota Court of Appeals

Meuser & Associates, P.A. has represented a number of Minnesota police officers and firefighters for workers’ compensation claims. We’ve also assisted a number of our clients in procuring Continuation of Healthcare Coverage under Minnesota Statute 299A.465.

Prior to July 2008, an injured firefighter or police officer who had been approved for a duty disability pension could seek continued healthcare coverage under Minnesota Statute 299A.465 by applying to a panel to request a hearing. Unfortunately, the Panel erroneously denied benefits to many claimants.

The Minnesota legislature revised the statute effective July 2008, attempting to streamline the process of securing continued healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the new legislation is possibly worse than the old legislation. While PERA (Public Employee Retirement Association) members and members of local relief associations, such as MFRA (Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association), are included in the statute, the legislature apparently forgot about members of MSRS (Minnesota State Retirement Service), which includes members of the State Highway Patrol. Currently, there is a dispute as to whether disabled State Highway Patrol Officers are entitled to continued healthcare continuation. To read more about this dispute, click here.

We’ve succeeded in obtaining continued healthcare coverage under Minnesota Statute 299A.465 for several of our clients, including four cases we won at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. We got the fourth decision from the Court of Appeals today.

In the first case, Meuser & Associates, P.A. successfully argued before the Minnesota Court of Appeals that the Panel erroneously considered factors outside the scope of its statutory authority, thus securing Continued Healthcare Coverage for our client. Click here to read a copy of the Court of Appeals opinion.

In the second case, an injured firefighter petitioned the Panel for a review of his application. After three hearings, the Panel made numerous procedural and legal errors. The City of Richfield and our client ultimately agreed to settle the case, and our Client withdrew his application before the Panel. Despite withdrawing his application, the Panel held that he was ineligible for benefits. On review, the Court of Appeals reversed and agreed that the Panel did not have jurisdiction to deny our client’s benefits. Click here to read a copy of the Court of Appeals opinion.

In the third case, the City of Minneapolis refused to extend Continued Healthcare Coverage for our client. We made a motion for summary judgment in the District Court, which was denied. On appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Court agreed with our position that the claimant’s dependant insurance coverage through his wife’s policy was sufficient to qualify him for Continued Healthcare Coverage. The case was remanded to determine whether he met the other qualifications for Continued Healthcare Coverage. Click here to read a copy of the Court of Appeals opinion.

Finally, in the most recent case case, the Panel refused to extent Continued Healthcare Coverage for our client based on the suggestion that his injury may have been caused by something other than his employment. They also speculated that his disability might be temporary rather than permanent in nature. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Panel’s decision was not supported by the evidence, and in fact, the evidence showed that our client was entitled to Continued Healthcare Coverage. The Panel also concluded that the Panel exceeded its statutory authority in making a determination as to whether our client’s disability was temporary or permanent in nature. Click here to read a copy of the Court of Appeals opinion.

If you have questions about your entitlement to Continued Healthcare Coverage under Minnesota Statute 299A.465, give us a call at 877-746-5680 or click here to send us an email to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation. Note that our services in conjunction with continued healthcare coverage are billed on an hourly basis rather than on a contingent basis.

Visit Minnesota Workers' Compensation and Personal Injury Law Firm, Meuser & Associates, P.A., 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!

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!