In the fifth and final article of this five-part series, I discuss the current state of animal cruelty laws in the state of Minnesota and how these laws could be improved to provide a clearer standard for the public. To learn about the history of animal cruelty laws and its evolution, click here to start from the beginning of the series.
The Gerard decision cemented the court’s prior opinions by holding in a published opinion that justification is a fact question within the providence of the jury. However, because all of the court’s prior decisions on justification have been unpublished, the court should have gone further and clarified the parameters of the justification standard in its decision. The adoption of a clear standard in published decision is necessary because it would have precedential value, and judges across Minnesota would be able to use a uniform standard to instruct jurors on how to apply justification to the facts of a case.

The workers’ compensation system in Minnesota is an administrative process and, therefore, is different than a civil lawsuit. As a result, clients aren’t as familiar with the work comp process and what to expect during the duration of the time in the Minnesota work comp system.

First, an injured employee will report the work-related injury to his or her employer. The employer then must file a First Report of Injury. This First Report of Injury or “FROI” does not mean the employer and its insurance company will accept liability for the injury and begin making wage loss benefit payments or pay for your medical bills. This document shows that they were aware of the injury and that you believe your injury is causally related to your work activities. The FROI helps to demonstrate that the employer was placed on notice and aware of its potential liability. Employers—not employees—are responsible for completing the FROI and filing with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.

Second, the work comp insurance carrier will decided whether or not to accept liability for the employee’s injury. The insurance company may collect medical records, conduct a recorded statement, and reach out to your employer or supervisor. It is best to have an attorney working on your behalf in the earliest stages. The insurance company is looking for reasons to deny your claim. If the insurance company accepts liability and pays everything they are required to pay, then the attorney will not take any fees. The insurance carrier will issue a Notice of Primary Liability Determination, a form that either accepts your claim or, if it denies your claim, will list a reason for the denial.

This is the fourth article of a five-part series on animal cruelty laws in Minnesota. This article will discuss the State v. Gerard decision and examine the impact the decision may have on the “unjustifiable” standard.
While the court of appeals has rendered several decisions giving the lower courts insight on how “unjustifiable” standard in Minnesota Statutes section 343.20, subd. 3 should be applied, State v. Gerard is important because it is the first published opinion on the issue of what constitutes an “unjustifiable” act under Minnesota’s animal cruelty statute. Given this, Gerard provides a starting point for creating a useable test for determining whether a defendant’s actions were unjustified.

Since October 1, 2013, workers who have developed PTSD, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, as a result of exposure to traumatic events while in the course and scope of their employment are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in the state of Minnesota. Many of our clients with PTSD are police officers, state troopers, corrections officers, deputy sheriffs, 911 dispatchers, and firefighters.

Despite, that an employee may have been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and the treating physician determined that the employee developed PTSD as a result of traumatic work-related exposure or exposures, most work comp insurance companies will deny PTSD claims.

If a work comp insurance company denies your PTSD claim you should immediately consult with an attorney to bring a claim petition on your behalf.

Top Reasons Work Comp Insurance Companies Deny PTSD Claims

1. The date of the injury is before October 1, 2013

Many adjusters are not familiar with the new law and the correct application of the law. If a police officer, firefighter, corrections officer, or 911 dispatcher witnessed or experienced a specific traumatic event before October 1, 2013, insurance companies typically deny primary liability of the claim. Even if the traumatic event did take place before October 1, 2013, the applicable date of injury used to determine compensable claims is the date the employee became disabled as a result of the condition.