819 N.W.2d 143
Minn.2012Background
- Anderson worked for Frontier Communications (1987–2007) as a lineman performing highly physical duties.
- He developed progressive back problems beginning in 1996 but did not report them as work-related at that time.
- By March 2007 medical records showed degenerative changes; May 2007 surgeon noted the condition, with discussion of work activity but no work restrictions.
- Anderson knew by July 4, 2007 that work aggravated his back and underwent surgery soon after; he continued to work until then.
- No timely written notice was given to Frontier about a work-related back injury until May 2009; SSDI benefits were awarded in 2007–2009 and a long-term disability insurer sought reimbursement.
- The compensation judge denied benefits for lack of timely notice and lack of employer knowledge; WCCA reversed; the Supreme Court reversed the WCCA and affirmed the denial of benefits; the dissent would have found timely notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of notice under 176.141 Gillette-type injury | Anderson argues May 2009 notice was timely. | Frontier argues notice should have been given by July 2007 as the injury was known to be work-related. | Notice not timely; majority sustains denial. |
| Employer actual knowledge requirement | Frontier did not have actual knowledge as of last day of work. | N/A in the context of the holding. | Employer lacked actual knowledge; benefits denied. |
| Appropriate standard for start of notice period for gradual injuries | Date should toll until medical linkage to work is established; April–May 2009 is timely. | Notice should have occurred earlier once work connection was reasonably apparent. | Court adopts Issacson-like standard; delay permissible until connection is reasonably apparent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Issacson v. Minnetonka, Inc., 411 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1987) (tolls notice until reasonably apparent connection to employment)
- Gillette v. Harold, Inc., 257 Minn. 313, 101 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1960) (Gillette-type injury; gradual aggravation compensable; notice rules)
- Barcel v. Barrel Finish, 304 Minn. 536, 232 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1975) (date-of-injury concepts for Gillette-type injuries; notice considerations)
- Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77, 178 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1970) (actual knowledge requires facts linking work to injury)
- Rhine v. State, 234 Minn. 146, 47 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. 1951) (recognizes seriousness/causation considerations in notice)