News

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has determined that employers and insurers are not responsible for disability benefits resulting from undertaking medical treatment that is not causally related to a work injury.

In Hohlt v. University of Minnesota, filed on June 28, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court has limited the scope of its prior decision in Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 2013). The Hohlt decision will immediately impact how cases are analyzed with regard to the “arising out of” and “in the course of” compensability determinations, and may very well impact cases that are currently in litigation.

In a decision issued by the Minnesota Supreme Court on May 3, 2017, the Court significantly raised the level of importance of the contents of a Rehabilitation Plan prepared as part of a workers’ compensation matter. In Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC, File No. A16-0895 (May 3, 2017), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that an employer and insurer cannot discontinue temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits when the employee rejected a job offer from the date-of-injury employer because the Rehabilitation Plan identified the vocational goal as return to work to a “different employer.”

On April 5, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued Wilbur v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., applying "proceeds awarded" for purposes of Minnesota's first-party bad faith statute to unambiguously mean the judgment amount entered by the district court on the claim for benefits, an amount which is capped by the insurance policy’s limit.

Does Minn. Stat. § 227.271 Create a Private Right of Action for Violations of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and their Minnesota Analogues? by Jeffrey J. Woltjen and James F. Mewborn Minnesota Chapter 221 regulates both interstate and intrastate motor carriers operating in Minnesota. The statutes largely adopt the federal motor carrier legislation, known as the Federal Motor Safety Carrier Regulations (“FMCSRs”), codified as 49 C.F.R. §§ 300.01 et seq., which set forth the mandatory safety regulations that motor carriers must follow in the course of transporting persons or property for business purposes.

328 Barry Ave., LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, 871 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. Nov. 25, 2015) Contractors everywhere experienced a slight setback when the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion on November 25, 2015, in 328 Barry Ave., LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the general contractor that the statute of limitations on claims for defective construction can begin to run before substantial completion of the construction, under Minn. Stat. § 541.051; however, the court refused to expand “discovery of the injury” to include a leak, previously remedied, such that the two year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1 would bar Plaintiff’s claims.