The short answer is yes, depending on how the correctional officer sustained his or her injury. The legislative intent in cases such as these is framed by Minnesota Statutes section 353.63, in which the legislature announced that special consideration should be given to government employees who devote their time to protecting the safety of others. The legislature recognized that the work correctional officers perform on a day-to-day basis is hazardous, and for this reason decided to provide a Duty Disability benefit for correctional officers disabled in the course of their employment. See Minn. Stat. § 353E.06, subd. 1 (2012). Minnesota Statutes section 353E.06 provides that “[a] local government correctional employee who is determined to qualify for a Duty Disability as defined in section 353E.001, subdivision 1, is entitled to a disability benefit.” Id. At the time relevant to this proceeding, Duty Disability was defined as:
a condition that is expected to prevent a member, for a period of not less than 12 months, from performing the normal duties of a local government correctional service employee as defined under section 353E.02 and that 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 local government correctional service retirement plan.

While pursuing a workers’ compensation claim, clients often ask if they can sue their employer for the employer’s role in their work related injury. The short answer is no, but there may be a third-party claim through which a lawsuit can be filed against another party that had a role in causing your injury. Workers’ compensation in Minnesota is a no-fault system, which means that it doesn’t matter which party caused a worker to sustain an injury in order for an injury to be compensable, or for an injured worker to be entitled to benefits. This is both good and bad for employees. Insurance companies aren’t able to blame you for your injury in order to evade paying for your lost wages or medical bills. But, employers and companies that have unsafe work spaces or somehow contribute to employees’ injuries aren’t penalized through the workers’ compensation system.

The last couple weeks here in Minnesota have been cold! While we Minnesotans think of ourselves as a hardy breed of people able to tolerate the cold, even the toughest among us need to take precautions to stay warm and safe during the cold winter weather.
Minnesota workers who have jobs that require them to be outside, such as road workers, construction workers, firefighters, police officers, paramedics, electrical workers, and laborers should be mindful of the hazards of cold weather work. These individuals should be aware of ways to prevent cold weather injuries. Cold stress can occur when the body is unable to warm itself. It can lead to tissue damage and possibly even death. Factors that can contribute to cold stress include:

1) Cold air temperatures
2) High velocity air movement (wind chill)
3) Air moisture
4) Contact with cold water or surfaces

A cold environment forces the body to work harder to maintain its temperature. The most common types of injuries and illnesses that occur due to cold stress are hypothermia, frostbite, and trench foot.

In the law, a body of rules governs whether or not evidence is admissible or able to be presented to a judge or a jury to help the fact-finder make a determination on the merits of a case. The rules of evidence in administrative law and contested case hearings are different than the rules of evidence in civil trials. Administrative law and contested case hearings include workers’ compensation hearings, PERA duty disability hearings, and healthcare continuation hearings. The differences in the rules of evidence affect how an attorney would present a workers’ compensation, PERA disability, or health care continuation case to a judge and how an attorney would present your case to a jury in a personal injury civil trial.

Rules of Evidence in Personal Injury Civil Cases

Personal injury claims are civil claims and when sued out are filed in district court. Personal injury cases may go to a trial and are heard in front of a trial judge and a jury. Generally, personal injury cases are filed in state court where the Minnesota Rules of Evidence govern the proceedings. If you are denied long-term or short-term disability benefits from an insurance company, sometimes you may sue the insurance company for a breach of contract action. Typically these particular breach of contract cases are “removed” to federal court. The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the proceedings in federal court. The Minnesota Rules of Evidence are very similar the Federal Rules of Evidence. Like almost all court proceedings in civil court, the Minnesota Rules of Evidence are much stricter than the rules of evidence in administrative and contested case hearings.

Rules of Evidence in Administrative Law and Contested Case Hearings

Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, Minnesota Statute § 176, work comp falls under the body of administrative law. Workers’ compensation proceedings may go to a hearing in front of an administrative law judge rather than a jury. This ensures that more injured workers have quicker access to relief under the law. An administrative hearing is less formal than a trial court and as such the rules of evidence and procedure are more lenient and expeditious, “the [workers’] compensation judge is bound neither by the common law or statutory rules of evidence nor by technical or formal rules of pleading or procedure.” Minn. Stat. 176.411, subd. 1.