A241465
Minn.Jul 22, 2026Background
- Nicholas Rowe, a former Minneapolis police officer, alleged work-related PTSD after years of traumatic police responses and sought workers’ compensation benefits. 1
- Rowe’s first psychologist diagnosed PTSD under the DSM-5; the City’s expert, Dr. Young, disputed PTSD and diagnosed alcohol abuse disorder using the DSM-5. 2
- Rowe’s later evaluation by Dr. Aleknavicius used the DSM-5-TR and diagnosed PTSD despite finding he did not satisfy Criterion B in the past month. 3
- The compensation judge found Rowe entitled to the statutory PTSD presumption but held the City rebutted it by crediting Dr. Young’s opinion over Dr. Aleknavicius’s. 4
- The WCCA reversed, holding the City’s rebuttal evidence was legally insufficient because Dr. Young relied on the outdated DSM-5 rather than the DSM-5-TR. 5
- The supreme court reversed, holding the DSM-5-TR is the most recent DSM edition, but an employer may rebut with evidence other than an IPE and a judge may consider an outdated-DSM IPE. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What counts as the most recently published DSM edition? 7 | Rowe said DSM-5-TR controlled. | City said DSM-5 remained the relevant edition. | DSM-5-TR is the most recently published DSM edition. 8 |
| Is an IPE the only way to rebut the PTSD presumption? 9 | Rowe said rebuttal required a current-DSM IPE. | City said rebuttal can come from other substantial evidence. | No; any substantial factors may rebut the presumption. 10 |
| May a judge consider an outdated-DSM IPE? 11 | Rowe said outdated-DSM IPEs must be excluded. | City said outdated-DSM use affects weight, not admissibility. | Yes; the IPE may be considered and weighed. 12 |
| Did the WCCA properly set aside the rebuttal finding? 13 | Rowe argued Dr. Young’s opinion could not support rebuttal. | City argued Dr. Young’s opinion plus critiques supported rebuttal. | No; the WCCA erred in excluding Dr. Young’s opinion. 14 |
| What happens to Rowe’s unresolved alternative arguments? 15 | Rowe asked the court to decide foundation and benefits issues. | City said the WCCA should address them first. | Remanded to the WCCA for those issues. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Lagasse v. Horton, 982 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 2022) (WCCA may set aside a finding only when no reasonable evidence supports it 17)
- Juntunen v. Carlton County, 982 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2022) (employer may rebut PTSD presumption with substantial proof, including competing diagnosis or other evidence 18)
- Tea v. Ramsey Cnty., 5 N.W.3d 114 (Minn. 2024) (compensation judge must evaluate medical evidence, not independently apply DSM criteria 19)
- Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, 23 N.W.3d 582 (Minn. 2025) (court declined to endorse any interpretation of the DSM or decide credibility of competing diagnoses 20)
- Johnson v. Concrete Treatments, Inc., 7 N.W.3d 119 (Minn. 2024) (plain-meaning statutory interpretation applies to unambiguous text 21)
- Linnell v. City of St. Louis Park, 305 N.W.2d 599 (Minn. 1981) (statutory presumption requires a strong employer showing to rebut 22)
- Jerabek v. Teleprompter Corp., 255 N.W.2d 377 (Minn. 1977) (presumption is rebutted only by substantial evidence to the contrary 23)