*1 с) affirmed; Finally, there is no evidence of Convictions sentence of life improper imprisonment misconduct nor de with three of the consec- prosecutorial five utive sentences of terms of 60 motion for a mistrial which re months each nial of a concurrently. to be served trial. Norris and a new quires reversal prosecutor pre a that the violated claims prohibited the admission order which
trial police related to surveillance of
of evidence 16, 1986, prior to October and that
Norris denying in a mistrial
the trial court erred uninten some of the evidence was
tionally revealed. hearing, defense coun- At the Rasmussen PARSON, Eddie T. suppress any statements to moved to sel Employee-Respondent, Sergeant knew Norris’ effect that Will suspect in number because he was a license COMPANY, The court directed coun- HOLMAN ERECTION
other robberies. INC., issue, and Home Insurance negotiate a settlement on this sel to Company, Employer/Insurer-Relators, agreed and both the defense and the state any that the state would not elicit testimo- trial, ny along thosе lines. Later in the Sowles, L.H. Inc. and Home Insurance examination, during Clark’s direct Clark Company, referred to “Norris’ MO.” Norris claims Employer/Insurer-Respondents. reference, Sergeant this as well as testimony gave later that he the in- Will’s No. C5-87-1037. name, vestigating officer Norris’ address Supreme Court Minnesota. pretrial and license number violated the agreement. Aug. 5, 1988. denying Rehearing Sept.
In defense counsel’s motion for Denied mistrial, pros- the trial court found thаt the including everything he could
ecutor “did will, signal, you if and hand Clark
verbal stop talking immediately, and I believe did, fact, stop talking
that Clark immedi- * * ately
There is no here that the state evidence
intentionally anticipated elicited or Clark’s Furthermore, counsel
statement. defense he did object
did not at the time because emphasize the matter and raise
not want to flag.” present parallels
a “red case Haglund, where we held that
State v. prosecutorial is
where a elicitation uninten
tional, only if the evidence we will reverse (Minn. prejudicial. 267 N.W.2d
1978). Here, against evidence other
Norris, including Spreigl offense ad part operan a modus
mitted establish effectively any prejudicial effect dilutes
ds that Clark’s might comment have had. judgment of
We affirm the convictions
and the sentence as modified. *2 Jr., Kettering, Katherine L. W.
Robert Maas, Mackinnon, Minneapоlis, Ellen L. relators. Paul, Eddie Healey, J. St.
Michael Parson. Thul, Minneapolis, for L.H. T.
John Sowles. compen-
COYNE, Justice. sation rate. appeal by this issue raised primary WCCA, banc, appeal, sitting On en Compensa- of Workers’ from a decision *3 Sowles, Inc., liability affirmed the of L.H. an em- Appeals is whether tion of Court temporary for total benefits injury has ployee work-related whose percent appropriate on 50 of the com- based improvement, medical maximum reached and, decision, pеnsation by majority rate recovery com- paid economic has been although employee’s right ruled that the employment is pensation, has no but who temporary total from Hol- partial compensation eligible temporary Company man Erection had ceased 90 compensation rate. temporary total MMI, after attainment of Holman was temporary partial compen- Concluding that continuing tempo- nevertheless liable for under these circum- sation is not available rary partial compensation at 50 stances, reverse. we temporary compensation rate for total 11, 1981, employee September On employee’s duration of total injury right knee his while suffered certiorari, sought by Holman con- review Inc., Sowles, employed by as an iron work- tending contrary decision is that the WCCA Following project. er on a construction to the intent of the so-called “new law.” surgery, employee returned to work knee much has said and written Since been eventually laid off. was for Sowles but import the reasons for and the of the about Holman Erec- Employee then worked for Compensa- 1983 revision Workers’ 20, 1984, Company August when tion until Act, tion an exhaustive review of the 1983 injury to his a work-related he sustained history legislative and their amendments Following surgery on the left left knee. may, however, hardly necessary here. It that, knee, surgeon employee advised to recall that for more than ten be well not injuries, of his he could as a result Act, years before 1983 revision Although he work. return to construction had directed at severe criticism been employ- sought employment, diligently has system compensating em- Minnesota’s injured he was ee since has worked permanent par- ployees whose work-related August 1984. pre- disability prеvented their return to tial though they injury jobs, even were able medical employee reached maximum The work. Several detailed studies do other inju- respect to his 1984 improvement with preceded amendments: Minnesota report ry, Holman served a medical and Commission, Study Compensation Workers’ July indicating of MMI on attainment Legislature Report to the Minnesota A pay employee 1985. Holman continued to (1979); League, Citizens Work- Governor temporary total until October Em- Compensation Reform: Get the ers’ 14, 1985, began eco- payment it (1982); ployees Back on the Minnesota Job recovery compensation. nomic Division, Compensa- Workers’ Insurance petition for employee The filed a claim Rec- Analysis in Minnesota: An with tion compensation. continuing temporary total Williams, (1982); Arthur ommendations C. Holman compensation judge The ruled that Gonanno, Jr., Azevedo, M. аnd P. Schu- R. fulfilled its obli- Company Erection had mann, Compensation Minnesota Workers’ by payment of tem- gation Objective Analysis to the and Costs: An Benefits compensation until 90 porary (1983). many total The studies confirmed what report by the MMI followed suspected after service of the cost of workers’ had —that recovery compensa- higher payment of economic insurance was found, compensation judge neighboring also states and The than in tion. Minnesota unusually high however, injury knee contributed liti- that each that Minnesota had Plight Crochiere, The employee’s disability, gation and he P. percent to rate. Improves: Employee An Sowles, Inc., Displaced L.H. the 1981 concluded that Changes to Minneso- continuing tempo- Analysis the 1983 employer, liable for was System, Compensation ta’s Workers’ at rary disability benefits calculated (1986). is that to temporary L.Rev. entitlement Mitchell Wm. longer oрen-ended; adversary nature the method deter- is no permanent partial extent of dis- mining the statute now sets a definite date for termi- availability open-ended ability and the temporary compensation. nation of benefits were was, Subdivision 2 of section 176.101 on problems. major identified as hand, substantively the other amended then, deleting setting, in this that the sentence It was the last of the then germane (deleted Act existing revised the sections pоrtions are inquiry present amended. The underscored): were lined out and insertions to Minn.Stat. amendments Subd. 2. PARTIAL TEMPORARY *4 1 and to be appear minor. subdivisions temporary In all cases DISABILITY. of however, is, changes of these of effect compensation partial disability the shall 66 n 1 major significance. was Subdivision percent the be of difference between words, only by the six amended addition of weekly daily wage the of the worker which are underscored below: employee injury at the time of and the employee Temporary 1. wage total dis- he Subdivision the earn in able to employee's ability. injury producing temporary For partially his the con- disabled is 66 n disability, compensation the total compensation paid dition. This shall be wage except weekly at the time during period disability the of as provided 176.101, injury of payment in section to vides that pensation provisions injury shall permanent partial disability. tion —and maximum medical completed an changes no division section 176.101 cepts these account of work-related reached maximum medical ment onomic sation for able for shall 1983 Minn.Laws period at the Those six words limit compensation able, “employee permanent disability Subject to subdivisions 3a to 3u this cease” 176.101, [*] as the 21 recovery as 3e). intervals when the temporary in the related subdivisions * * permanent partial of subdivisions 3a nearly may “temporary disability, [*] receive “two-tier” approved retraining program, Subdivision which introduce are shall compensation compensation ch. and subdivision as [*] has incurred (subdivisions after the total such temporary payment be system injuries that cause improvement compensation pay- [*] or that result in 3d totally disability paid § be. improvement or wage 42. disability provides employee to 3u of 3a to 3u of Included in рayable and to be made [*] during total com- a 3a and 3e(a) pro- sweeping new personal compen- impair- (sub- —ec- sfe pay- that con- sec- has the the 3b) on appropriate.” that ment to subdivision compensation implicit tation disabled temporary “[a]n subdivision 3e present statute and tion based on the difference between compensation pursuant statute. Subdivision full 1983 Minn.Laws be made wage. the worker with work with another еqual paid at his was and subject diligent or her compensation payment post-injury wages. job temporary partially employee who on he is payable, to the statewide employee the temporary If-the entitlement shall receive has been to a effort, partial disability at the unable full or subdivision employer, as employer-does provides compensation c. maximum intervals rate for the nearly may to total 3h rеaffirms the limi- unemployed eliminated from accepts compensation in the procure employee by providing which temporary temporary partial disabled condition All after average weekly as subdivision temporary 3f provision for compensation the event of he can rate not and reasonably such work job compensa- Thus, the shall be partially be, furnish amend- begins partial for-his under wage do in total 2, if that pre- and Moreover, although parties import is later. The six- whichever temporary refer to of section subd. WCCA word amendment temporary partial partial compensation dis- be available to em- benefits, commonly terms used to ability ployees working. who are not Further- more, under periodic benefits accept argument describe tempo- law,” terms are used in different partial the “old rary compensation may paid at temporary 3a to 3u to describe subdivisions temporary total rate under the circum- Subdivision 3e wage replacement benefits. stances present case and thus be- “temporary compensa- provides come a temporary substitute for total com- 3e(a) tion”; mandates termi- subdivision pensation meaningless renders the man- compensation” “temporary total nation of 3e(a) date in employee reaches mаxi- days after shall cease 90 af- only pro- improvement. The mum medical employee ter the reaches maximum medical partial compensa- “temporary visions improvement. provi- To reinstate the old providing payment for the tion” are those temporary partial disability sions for bene- compensation” “temporary partial to an present compensatory system fits into the job pays at a which who works lеgislative goal frustrates the employee’s pre-injury employ- less than the by judicial the 1983 revision but vitiates Co., Thompson ment. Patton v. Elec. See *5 language legislature construction the the (Minn.1988). 597 Inas- 420 N.W.2d employed implement to that intention. legis- that much as there is little doubt the predecessor, Like its the “new law” is 1983 to lature intended the revision estab- suspects not without flaws. One in that compensa- format for lish a new workers’ attempting perceived employee to forestall tion, legislature must assume that the we compensation sys- of the workers’ abuse changed language to intended its new tem, legislature may the well have created something different than the lan- mean opportunity employer an abuse. But guage of the old statute. justifiable the fear that the termination of generally recognized appears It to temporary compensation total and the con- sсheme, enacting statutory that in the new obligation pay temporary partial tinued to cutting temporary off total com- which compensation employee post- to an whose days pensation 90 after maximum medical injury job pays pre-injury job less than his integral part, legis- improvement is an the discourages employer providing an from sought provide to economicincentive lature post-injury employment justify ju- does not employers provide employ- to suitable dicial reconstruction of the Workers’ Com- injured employees, ment for to eliminate pensation legislature, the Act. It is for open-end weekly the unlimited nature of Court, judge utility to the social the of this temporary compensation, total and to en- statutory system, which has no common courage employees accept to suitable em- counterpart, law to balance the interests of Altman, Benanav, ployment. Keefe & employees employers, and to make Volz, Compensa- Minnesota’s Workers’ adjustments whatever and corrections it tion Scheme: The Effects Effective- appropriate. deems Amendments, ness the 1983 13 Wm. hold, therefore, We that on cessation of L.Rev., 843, (1987). Mitchell the 867 While employee’s temporary entitlement an to to- temporary partial compensa- limitations on compensation days reaching 90 after tal compelling clarity, tion are stated with less ap- MMI or 90 after the end of an provi- the deletion from subdivision of the who, retraining plan, employee proved compensation payment sion for the to an search, despite diligent is unable find unemployed temporarily partially disabled employment temporary is not entitled to employee compensation full at the rate tempоrary partial compensation total temporary total and the disassoci- rate, reverse deci- compensation and we the temporary ation in 3a to 3u of subdivisions (whether of the WCCA that Holman Erection sion compensation from total continuing Company temporary is liable for partial temporary per- or and whether or manent) partial compensation at 50 compels the conclusion that the cоmpensation legislature temporary total rate. temporary did not intend that I, employee tion or under article of Minnesota of review the By notice § constitutionality of Minn.Stat. Constitution. attacks limi (1984), contending that 176.101 § employee argues also that he is compensation total temporary
tation of temporary compen entitled to receive total process MMI violates the due after payment sation aftеr in full of economic Amend Fifth and Fourteenth clause of recovery compensation. Minn.Stat. the United States Constitution ments of 3e(b) (1984), however, pro subd. § I, 8 of Minnesota Constit and article opposite: temporary vides the “Once employee asserts Specifically, ution.1 temporary ceases no further temporary limitation of law” “new except as inadequate sub compensation provides an provided specifically by this section.” injured worker remedy for stitute 3j pro While section 176.101 light that the under of the fact worker tempo for the vides recommencement of right up bring his a civil given Act has rary total to an employer. against action working job has started at a offered unconstitu- A is not to be declared law medically subdivision 3e who is under but so, and palpably court unless by tional this injury, to continue unable because absolutely necessary. Carlson compensa reinstated Smogard, 298 Minn. 215 N.W.2d subject day to the limita tion is same 90 reviewing the (1974). context In the provided subdivision 3e. Since we tions validity constitutional the Workers’ create cannot entitlement Act, we declared Compensation have basis, statutory there is we for which no nor a reason- “neither a one-for-one balance *6 temporary total hold that entitlement to abrogated for common law able substitute upon does compensation not recommence Tracy v. rights required validity.” for recovery com the exhaustion economic Industries, 283 N.W.2d Streater/Litton pensation. 909, (Minn.1979). pro- In of due 914 terms cess, ultimate test is whether “[t]he if Finally, employee contends arbitrary, so unreasonable and statute is obligation pay temporary total to Holman’s unjust repugnant pro- the due as to be to ended after he compensation 90 Id. at 916. Although guarantees.” cess MMI, tempo is liable for reached Sowles recognize limits to the we constitutional disability percent at 100 rary total benefits legislature’s power injured to limit compensation the 1981 rate because of the remedy, agree we do with the workers’ not contributing factor a injury is substantial that he employee’s claim does not have argument has been That to his adequate in substitute this case for his Co., Nut Joyce Bolt & Lewis rejected. Employee remediеs at common law. was Since, (Minn.1987). how 304 412 N.W.2d paid temporary until 90 challenged the com ever, has never Sowles following report service of MMI it was liable judge’s decision that pensation recovery and com- then received economic disability temporary total payment of for pensation. may He also seek percent 50 of the benefits at if permanent for rate, is not at issue that determination 176.101, subd. appropriate. Minn.Stat. § here, leave decision and we remedies, (1984). we light In 3o these undisturbed. WCCA statutory tempo- hold limitation of therefore, of tem- We, the award reverse rary compensation does not violate compensation payable partial porary rights pro- employee’s under the due percent 50 Company at Erection Holman cess of the Fifth and Fourteenth clause compensation rate Amendments of the United States Cоnstitu- Const, character, freely justice I, and obtain 8 follows: § 1. Minn. art. reads as completely and without de- purchase, without Every employee is a certain reme- entitled to nial, delay, conforma- promptly and without injuries wrongs dy which in the laws for all or laws. person, property or ble to the may to his he receive 78 tempo- leaving place unemployed in the award of who are because of their work-
while payable by benеfits rary total related disabilities. Sowles, ap- of the Inc. at 50
L.H. view, my In reading a fair of this dele rate. propriate tion leads to the conclusion that the amend Reversed. merely changed ment for the basis temporarily par calculation of benefits (dissenting part). WAHL, Justice tially unemployed disabled workers. In majority The con- respectfully I dissent. calculating stead of tempo benefits at the legislature’s deletion the 1983 cludes that rary subjеct diligent total rate to a work 2 of sentence subdivision of the last search, such benefits are to calculated legislative evinces clear section 176.101 earning on the capacity. basis of We have temporary partial bene- intent to eliminate consistently held the calculation of benefits claimants. As we noted unemployed fits to portion under that 2 of subdivision left 422 Company, Gasper v. Northern Star earning after amendment is to be based on (Minn.1988), 727, legisla- 730 N.W.2d capacity, post-injury wages. Owens v. respect temporary par- ture’s intent with Corp., 711, (Minn. Pako 386 N.W.2d 715 Even as tial is far from obvious. benefits 1986); Co., Printing Olson v. Midwest 347 amended, provides benefits (Minn.1984); N.W.2d Morehouse v. workers; temporarily partially disabled Co., Geo. A. Hormel 313 N.W.2d & specifically limits nothing in the act (Minn.1981). history In view partially dis- only those such benefits disputed statutory provision, much I be employed. are abled workers who legislature lieve that if thе intended bene time, temporary partial disability At one temporarily partially fits for disabled work payable to all compensation, which was those ers to be limited who have temporary partially disabled workers managed employment, to find it would earning capacity. calculated on the basis improper I it is have said so. feel that 176.11(b)(1941). Enrico Minn.Stat. See supply Gasper, us to the limitation. Co., Mining 199 Minn. v. Oliver Iron at 730. N.W.2d (1937). statutory provi- 271 N.W. *7 imply prо- majority appears that subsequently provide sion was amended viding temporary partial would fix the rate of benefits for tem- that the commission unemployed temporarily for porarily partially unemployed, disabled and workers; and this rate was to be disabled legisla- will “frustrate” the overall workers percentage of based on the intent 1983 amendments to the act. tive disability compensation Temporary partial However, to mе that the allowance it seems for other was still calculated on workers tempo- temporary partial benefits to all earning capacity. 1945 Minn. basis of promotes rarily partially disabled workers 389, provision 1. The Laws ch. Sec. goal quickly 1983amendments to provide unemployed again that amended reintegrate injured workers back into the workers, temporarily partially disabled economicallyforcing the em- workforce work, diligent to find made a effort would get back into the ployer to temporary total rate. Tem- paid (either employer or with the workforce porary partial disability compensation for elsewhere) greater pay significantly or else to be based on other workers continued benefits. earning capacity. 1974 Minn.Laws ch. reasons, I hold foregoing would For making sentence refer- Sec. 2. In 2 of section 176.101 under subdivision ence of benefits for un- to the calculation partial- temporarily as amended in all employed workers was eliminated. Unlike eligible weekly ly disabled workers are however, I majority, am not convinced on the basis of benefits to be calculated legislative demonstrates that this deletion distinguished from earning capacity as entirely weekly eliminate benefits intent to wages. partially post-injury temporarily disabled workers YETKA, (dissenting). Justice WAHL. join
I in the dissent Justice
POPOVICH, (dissenting). Justice My Wahl. join
I in the dissent Justice legis- contemporaneous
review meaning- any history to disclose
lative fails insights on exact issue
ful discussion or affirm the Workers
involved here. I would holding Appeals’
Compensation Court pursuant to Minn.Stat. TPD is A indication of clear subd. TPD benéfits
legislative to eliminate intent unemployed because
to workers who are necessary. I find disability is
work-related majori- lacking and even the
such indication par- limitations on
ty states “the com- with less are stated
tial interpretation clarity.” Under the
pelling now, opportunity
being enunciated legis-
employer apparent. As the abuse grapples revisions to the work-
lature with laws, this flaw should be
ers
rectified. BILLIGMEIER, al., H. et
Jon
Respondents, *8 al., HENNEPIN, et
COUNTY OF
Petitioners, Appellants.
No. C4-87-848.
Supreme of Minnesota. Court
Aug.