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.

In this third article of a five-part series on animal cruelty, we will learn what is considered an “unjustified” action in Minnesota.
To prove animal torture or cruelty, the State must provide evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s act, omission or neglect caused or permitted unnecessary or unjustifiable pain, suffering, or death to an animal. Because the act, omission or neglect must have been “unjustifiable” many defendants argue as a defense that their act, which harmed or killed an animal, was justified. The court has not developed a clear standard regarding what constitutes an “unjustifiable” action but has discussed the standard in a number of unpublished cases.

First, in State v. Weber, the Minnesota Court of Appeals resolved the issue of whether the word “unjustified” was unconstitutionally vague. In this case, two neighboring families had a contentious relationship with one another. On the day of the incident, a dog belonging to the Dohrmann family crossed onto property belonging to the Weber family, and allegedly damaged insulation under a mobile home. When the dog approached Mr. Weber, he took out a gun and shot the dog. Mr. Weber’s primary defense was that his actions were justified because the Sheriff told him he could shoot the dog if it was on his property. The Sheriff denied this accusation in his testimony, and Mr. Weber was convicted with unjustly killing the dog under Minnesota Statutes section 343.21.