Attorneys Ron Meuser and Mary Beth Boyce obtained a successful jury verdict on behalf of their clients in Ramsey County. Ron and Mary Beth brought a civil claim on behalf of their client who was seriously injured while working as a deputy sheriff. A suspect wrestled with the officer while the officer attempted to prevent him from entering on the scene of an active fire. Through the negligent actions of the suspect, the officer suffered a career ending low back injury. The jury trial lasted 5 days and required expert testimony. Meuser Law Office successfully obtained a verdict that included monetary damages for wage loss, medical expenses, and pain and suffering in excess of $200,000.

Recently, the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (“WCCA”) heard a case involving PTSD and the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. Meuser Law Office Attorney Mary Beth Boyce brought a claim on behalf of her client, alleging that the employee developed post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) in the course and scope of his employment as a police officer, and as such was entitled to wage loss benefits, medical care and treatment, and rehabilitation services. The case proceeded to a formal hearing in front of a compensation judge in December of 2017. The compensation judge found in favor of employer and the insurer, denying that the employee suffered from PTSD.

When a work-related injury or condition is a substantial factor in causing an employee’s death, the employee’s dependents are entitled to certain benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. This is referred to as a “dependency claim.” If an injured worker dies due to a work injury, the injured worker’s spouse, children, or other dependent family members may be entitled to benefits.

1. Am I entitled to rehabilitation benefits?

An employee is entitled to rehabilitation services, or the services of a QRC, if the employee is deemed a “qualified employee.” A qualified employee is:

• permanently precluded or is likely to be permanently precluded from engaging in the employee’s usual and customary occupation or from engaging in the job the employee held at the time of injury;
• cannot reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment with the date-of-injury employer; and
• can reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment through the provision of rehabilitation services, considering the treating physician’s opinion of the employee’s work ability.