The Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision in Simonson v. Douglas County and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust (April 16, 2025) on rebutting the retirement presumption. More specifically, the issues were 1) the standard of proof necessary in rebutting the retirement presumption in a pre-October 1, 2018, date of injury case, and 2) whether there are a list of factors in determining if an employee rebuts the retirement presumption.
The underlying facts are these: The injured worker, Dawn Simonson, injured her low back in 1996, at the age of 40, while working for Douglas County. Following her date of injury she needed several multi-level fusions to her back. Douglas County also paid for 30 hours of nursing services per week. She had not worked since her date of injury. She applied for and received SSDI benefits. In 1999, she and Douglas County entered into a stipulation for settlement stipulating that she was permanently and totally disabled as of her date of injury. Douglas County paid her PTD benefits. When Simonson reached the age of 67, Douglas County discontinued her PTD benefits of $1,282.52, in accordance with the retirement presumption in effect on her date of injury. According to that provision,
“Permanent total disability shall cease at age 67 because the employee is presumed retired from the labor market. This presumption is rebuttable by the employee. The subjective statement the employee is not retired is not sufficient in itself to rebut the presumptive evidence of retirement but may be considered along with other evidence.”
Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2016). (As a reminder, the law changed on October 1, 2018, in that the PTD retirement age was raised to age 72, and it was irrebuttable. The law in effect on the date of injury applies.)
Without her PTD benefits, Simonson’s only income was her monthly Social Security retirement benefits of $815.00 (due to her age, her SSDI was converted to retirement benefits). Simonson filed a claim petition asserting entitlement to ongoing PTD benefits on the basis that she could rebut the retirement presumption.
At the trial level, Simonson testified about her dire financial situation as well as her intent not to retire at the age of 67. Douglas County provided evidence that she likely would have retired at the age of 67. The compensation judge determined that Simonson had not rebutted the retirement presumption by weighing different factors in favor of Simonson and in favor of Douglas County. Ultimately the compensation judge reasoned that “As each party has an equal number of factors in their favor, the Compensation Judge cannot conclude that [Simonson] has rebutted the presumption that she retired from the labor market.” In doing so, the compensation judge also determined that the burden of proof in overcoming the presumption was a preponderance of evidence rather than “substantial proof to the contrary” which was the higher standard Douglas County argued should apply.
Simonson appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA), and the WCCA overturned the compensation judge’s decision. Douglas County appealed the WCCA decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
After an analysis of past case law and the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that the standard of proof necessary in rebutting a retirement presumption in a pre-October 1, 2018, date of injury is the preponderance of evidence:
“All disputed issues of fact arising under this chapter shall be determined by a preponderance of the evidence, and in accordance with the principles laid down in section 176.001. Preponderance of the evidence means evidence produced in substantiation of a fact which, when weighed against the evidence opposing the fact, has more convincing force and greater probability of truth.
Frandsen v. Ford Motor Co., 801 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. 2011)(discussing the Workers’ Compensation Act).
The Minnesota Supreme Court then determined the proper legal test for determining whether an employee has rebutted the retirement presumption. The Court concluded that when determining whether an employee has rebutted the retirement presumption, the question relevant to workers’ compensation courts is “whether retirement would have happened anyway, even if the employee had not been disabled.” Grunst v. Immanuel-St. Joseph Hosp., 424 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1988). It explained that rather than using a checklist of factors that must be considered in every case, that the “compensation judges should consider the strength of each factor and assess how the factors interact with each other in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.” It emphasized that no single factor is dispositive.
The Minnesota Supreme Court remanded the case to the compensation judge for further findings consistent with its decision.
It should be noted that the WCCA tried to “change” the standard to be used to a standard in which the injured worker’s “financial predicament” is the overriding factor. The Supreme Court rejected this effort, noting that, consistent with its precedent, there are a number of factors which should be considered, but that none of these factors take priority over other factors. The Supreme Court also indicated that the factors which it has previously articulated are not a checklist either, but, again factors to be considered when making a determination regarding whether the presumption is rebutted. In other words, the Supreme Court has again reminded the WCCA that it cannot change the law, or in this case the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law, on its own.
Take aways:
- If stipulating to PTD for a date of injury pre-October 1, 2018, attempt to also stipulate to an agreement that benefits shall cease at age 67. This is likely easier said than done, but it would be worth the attempt. It may also be worth paying a little extra to come to this stipulation.
- When faced with a situation in which there is an attempt to rebut the presumption, gather all available pieces of evidence and information related to rebutting or defending the attempt to rebut the presumption. In reading this decision, the Supreme Court noted several pieces of potentially relevant information that were missing from the record.
If you have any questions, please contact any of your workers’ compensation attorneys at Arthur Chapman!
