Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co.
2015 Minn. LEXIS 476
| Minn. | 2015Background
- Todd C. Allan (age 48 at injury) suffered a work-related back injury on Sept. 28, 2010 and received a 10% whole‑body permanent‑partial disability rating under the schedule.
- Allan also had a non‑work‑related complete loss of teeth, assigned a separate 10% rating (corrected with dentures).
- Allan petitioned for permanent‑total‑disability benefits in 2013; because of his age he needed at least a 17% permanent‑partial whole‑body rating under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 5(2)(i).
- The compensation judge credited only the back injury (10%) and denied permanent‑total benefits because the dentures‑corrected tooth loss was not counted.
- The WCCA reversed, holding that any permanent‑partial rating may be used to meet the threshold even if the underlying condition does not affect employability; the employer (R.D. Offutt Co.) sought review.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the WCCA and remanded for proceedings to determine whether the non‑work condition (tooth loss) actually affects employability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disabilities that contribute to the permanent‑partial rating must affect employability for § 176.101, subd. 5(2) eligibility | Allan: any permanent‑partial ratings (from any source) may be aggregated to meet the statutory threshold; underlying conditions need not affect employability | Offutt: only disabilities that contribute to inability to secure employment may be counted toward the threshold | Court: Statute unambiguously requires that disabilities counted toward the permanent‑partial threshold must affect employability (reversed WCCA; remanded to determine effect on employability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 332, 274 Minn. 380, 144 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 1966) (ties permanent‑total disability to inability to engage in gainful employment)
- Yureko v. Prospect Foundry Co., 262 Minn. 480, 115 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. 1962) (corrected industrial blindness did not qualify as total disability where employee could work; total disability requires inability to earn income)
- Gluba ex rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry, 735 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2007) (permanent‑partial ratings are poor determiners of wage‑earning capacity but Legislature may use them as threshold indicators)
- Moes v. City of St. Paul, 402 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 1987) (permanent‑partial benefits compensate impairment of bodily function independent of wage loss)
- Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 781 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. 2010) (statutory plain‑meaning construction principles applied)