Minn. Worker's Removal from Labor Market Curbs Claim for TPD Benefits

Minneapolis, MN (WorkersCompensation.com) -- If an injured worker decides to bail out on the labor market, it could have a negative impact on their efforts to claim workers' compensation benefits.

Such was the case in Hanson v. Kato Cable, No. WC22-6477 (Minn. W.C.C. App. 01/24/23), where although a worker logged hours for the company her wife ran, she still didn't convince the court that she was in the labor market.

A worker for a cable manufacturer experienced a work injury and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. She eventually returned to her job with permanent work restrictions for her left shoulder. 

About a year later, the worker began experiencing symptoms in her right shoulder. The employee's work restrictions remained unchanged but now applied to both shoulders.

Despite the employee's ongoing symptoms, she continued working with restrictions. The worker testified that "often" she would be assigned to tasks that resulted in worsened pain due to her overextending herself at work.

The worker asked if there were any remote jobs within the company, but she was told there were no such positions available. The worker eventually resigned and began working for her wife's "side business" for about 25-30 hours per week.

The worker filed a claim seeking various workers' compensation benefits, including past and ongoing total permanent disability benefits. The compensation judge issued an order in which he found that the employee had work restrictions related to her permanent left should injury and to her unresolved right shoulder and neck injuries.

The judge awarded TPD benefits to the worker from 2018-2020 but denied benefits from 2021 on. The judge also stated that the worker's right shoulder and neck injuries were temporary.

The worker appealed.

Under Minnesota law, it is the employee’s burden to establish a diminution in earning capacity that is causally related to the work injury.

The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals explained that the issue in the case was whether the employee effectively removed herself from the full-time labor market, and decided that she did.

In support of its decision, the court reasoned:

• The worker had restrictions on work activity but not on work hours.
• The worker did not seek any additional work or demonstrate any efforts to improve her work situation or supplement her reduced income.
• The worker self-limited her workability to "remote only," but she did not conduct any job search for such work.
• There was no evidence that the worker's job with her wife's business was likely to grow into a full-time career.
• The worker did not offer any evidence to demonstrate she was actively taking steps to increase her work hours, earning capacity, or expand her job duties.

"Taken as a whole, the evidence supports the compensation judge's ... opinion that the employee withdrew from the labor market and is not eligible for TPD benefits," the court concluded in upholding the ruling against the worker.

Get the skinny on Minnesota and the rest of the U.S. with a WorkCompResearch subscription.

Share This Article: