Swenson v. Nickaboine, 793 N.W.2d 738

Swenson, a Minnesota non-tribal employee, injured on MLBO land during a casino expansion project on land held in trust for MLBO by the federal government.
Nickaboine is an MLBO enrolled member operating as Northland Quality Builders, with work performed on MLBO or federal land; Mortenson contracted with MLBO and required TERO compliance.
Northland agreed to Mortenson’s TERO plan and obtained workers’ compensation insurance from SFM Mutual Insurance Company (SFM).
Swenson filed a workers’ compensation claim; SFM moved to dismiss for lack of statutory jurisdiction; the compensation judge dismissed on constitutional grounds, focusing on federal Indian law concepts.
WCCA reversed, holding Minnesota jurisdiction under 40 U.S.C. § 3172 and Public Law 280; SFM sought certiorari; the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.
The court addressed (1) extraterritorial reach of Minnesota’s WC Act to tribal land, (2) contractual attempts to divest Minnesota of jurisdiction, and (3) whether § 3172 authorizes state jurisdiction over an injury on land held in trust for a tribe.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Minn. Stat. § 176.041 apply to injuries on tribal land in Minnesota?	Swenson argues tribal land is within Minnesota, so § 176.041(5a) applies.	SFM contends tribal land is outside Minnesota and § 176.041(5a) does not extend extraterritorial coverage.	Yes; MLBO land lies within Minnesota for § 176.041(5a).
Can a contract between MLBO and Mortenson divest Minnesota of jurisdiction over WC claims?	Swenson contends such contract does not alter Minnesota’s statutory jurisdiction.	SFM argues contract requires tribal court jurisdiction for disputes arising from the agreement.	No; agreement does not bar Minnesota jurisdiction; statutory prohibition on contracting out of WC laws prevails.
Does § 40 U.S.C. § 3172 authorize Minnesota to adjudicate a WC claim arising on land held in trust for an Indian tribe?	Swenson relies on § 3172 to grant state jurisdiction over lands held in trust for MLBO.	Nickaboine argues § 3172 does not clearly include Indian activities and thus does not grant jurisdiction.	Yes; § 3172 authorizes Minnesota to exercise WC jurisdiction on land held in trust for MLBO.

Tibbetts v. Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee, 397 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. 1986) (addressed tribal sovereign immunity under § 3172; language not clearly including Indian activities)
Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 682 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982) ( section 3172 extends state WC laws to lands held in trust for tribes)
State ex rel. Indus. Comm’n v. Indian Country Enters., Inc., 944 P.2d 117 (Idaho 1997) ( Idaho Supreme Court: § 3172 extends WC coverage to Indian lands)
State ex rel. Workforce Safety & Ins. v. JFK Raingutters, 733 N.W.2d 248 (N.D. 2007) (state WC reach on Indian lands under § 3172)
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (Public Law 280 limits; framework for state interests in tribal contexts)
McClanahan v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973) (tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction principles)