*1 176.101, preexisting phys- ly greater, “End of because of a 3e is entitled Stat. subd. § compensation; temporary impairment, total suitable ical than what would have subdivision, whole, alone, contem- job.” personal injury resulted from the situations. It out- plates return to work employer pay compensation all shall offer, offer, job job lines the effect of a provided by chapter, employ- this but job provides refusal of a offer even special еr shall reimbursed from the be * * begins happen employee if the what is to compensation fund *. job Despite apparent and then leaves. 176.131, As subd. interrelationship ability between statutory argued by Special the relator and the Com- MMI, the return to work and statute Fund, pensation provision does not en- reached in a literally allows for MMI be benefits; title the worker to additional work; employee cannot case where provision. It allows it is а reimbursement 3e(a) stops temporary total dis- subdivision employer employee an who hires an with a ability days employee after the benefits disability from the to seek reimbursement report has reaches MMI and a been served. Special Compensation Fund if certain statu- Judicially adding a return-to-work re- tory requirements are met. 176.101, quirement to section subdivision disability employee’s Whether the is sub- that, 3e(a) ignore the fact in some would stantially greater pre-existing of a because (i.e., MMI reached no further be condition will be addressed when New significant recovery lasting improve- Mech’s Petition for Contribution or Reim- anticipated), reasonably ment can is heard. The decision of the bursement employee Generally, still cannot work. erroneously finding MMI WCCA makes a attained, permanent disability MMI is dependent Special on a determination of impairment compen- in the form of benеfits liability. Although apportionment Fund recovery compensation sation or economic liability employers/insurers between However, begin. adding a re- occur, Special eventually and the Fund will requirement, temporary turn-to-work total separate issue is from the current compensation would never end. discontinuance re- WCCA By announcing a rule which would forbid was, therefore, inappropriate. mand finding employee an MMI where the сannot Accordingly, Compensation the Workers’ work, yet return to this court would be Appeals’ Court of decision is affirmed in doing interpreting MMI; more than part. reversed adding requirement would be another language embodied the clear of the stat-
ute, necessary which would be tem- before
porary compensation may total cease. This we will leave for the
resolve.
WCCA Rationale
Despite our conclusion that correctly compensation WCCA reversed the Minnesota, Plaintiff, STATE of finding MMI, judge’s the rationale of the WCCA’s decision needs to be addressed. OLSON, Jr., Duane Dean Defendant. remanded the case to deter- WCCA employee’s disability mine whether the No. C8-88-1771. substantially greater pre-exist- due to his Supreme Court of Minnesota. ing disability. The basis of the remand greater” “substantially was that the issue Jan. is relevant to MMI. The statute that the provides: WCCA relied on employee personal injury incurs disability
and suffers that is substantial- *2 Resnick,
Phillip Minneapolis, S. for de- fendant. III, Gen., Humphrey, Atty.
Hubert H. St. Paul, Johnson, and Robert M.A. Anoka Goodell, County Atty., D. Asst. Robert Anoka, County Atty., plaintiff. Lemburger, Hosp. Victoria M. Minn. Ass’n, Eelkema, Minneapolis, Robert Minn. Ass’n, Minneapolis, amicus Medical curiae. SIMONETT, Justice. following
The trial court asks us the question: Whether brain defined as irre- of all versible cessation functions brain, including the as entire stated in the Uniform Determination of * * * “death” for Death Act constitutes purposes 609.20 and 609.19 Minn.Stat. § charged Duane Olson is Defendant degree degree murder and first second of his manslaughter the death 6-week- son, January old Dustin. On home police called to the Olson be- breathing. The child cause Dustin was where, hospital, according was taken to the diagnosed complaint, the child “was to the dead, placed upon as but was support systems which sustained his life January 8, respiratory functions until baby diagnosed having 1988.” The secondary injury intracranial brain had an baby syndrome.” The “whiplash shaken stated, complaint January “On further p.m., hospi- 4:10 apрroximately 1988 at tal, consulting family, dis- after support systems connected the baby p.m. dead at 5:25 was declared According January to the com- 1988.” police plaint, defendant Olson told that he during early morn- been awakened 1,1988, baby’s ing hours crying; baby he had shaken the three stop crying, each time harder I. times to last; shaking during than the Traditionally, sig death has been un- baby’s head moved back and forth heart nified cessation of According police, to the defend- protected. occurs, inevitably When this there beat. shaking earlier ant also told them organ functioning termination of all vital autopsy disclosed cerebral incident. The present. If the and death is brain ceases hemoto- swelling with bilateral subdural function, breathing and circulation blood *3 mas. too, occurs. In the last 30 cease and death however, years, technology medical has de hearing, defendant moved pretrial At the respirаtors veloped cardiac mechanical and grounds it complaint the to dismiss the produce resuscitation methods will de- probable cause that not did establish body and heartbeat the even charged; the crimes fendant committed case, the brain dead. such a the child’s death was caused that instead the body completely unresponsive; is there is support system, life by removal of the reflexes, movement, response no no no tо The called as actions. defendant’s flaccid, any stimulus. The muscles are the who had attend- the two doctors witnesses pupils eyes of the fixed and There dilated. child, Spiegel, the Dr. Ronald a board- ed system activity. no central The nervous neurologist, Dr. pediatric and John begins body decompose. condition The In- Ring, Medical Director Pediatric is irreversible. Even the mechanical Hospital in Care Unit at Children’s tensive support system produce breathing and will Ring Paul. Dr. is board certified St. body; skin, heartbeat the the for exam fellowships in pediatrics subspecialty stays warm, excreted, ple, urine is and cardiology pediatric and internal pediatric glucose sup Despite metabolized. the at, Dr. the child or Spiegel care. said was system, decomposi port cellular near, point admit- the of brain death when begins and, weeks, tion in a matter all of day, January hospital. to the next ted stоp. and heartbeat examination demonstrated the clinical may The brain be said consist of two baby response brain death. The no the parts: hemispheres, main cerebral stimuli, movement, no any no reflexes intelligence, cogni- are the of center activity on the EEG. The same tests brain tion, consciousness, emoting, high- January 6, 7, repeated on and with were stem, perceptions; the er brain change. The doctors concluded the brain, is the lower middle of con- the non- completely child’s entire was necting spinal controlling cord damage functional and that the brain respiration, pressure, blood other bio- cardiopul- irreversible. On death,” logical “Brain as that functions. monary support system was disconnected. community, term is used in the medical consulted, parents their While brain, including means the entire sought for permission was not nor obtained is dead. This condition must be distin- disconnection, child then guished separate from a known condition sidered dead. persistent state, vegetative where The trial court denied defendant’s motion coma, person is an irreversible there state, dismiss, but, request of activity. is still at least some residual brain certified the issue of whether brain death (Karen Quinlan case.) Ann was such A term in our was “death” as that is used person vegetative in a persistent state is homicide statutes. We acceler- living not dead still and is under defini- ated review. support tion of death. Removal of the answering Before the certified system patient vegetative from necessary need to decide whether state raises the appropriate for us to and if it is person, answer from a supports dying be removed First, however, see, Torres, us to do so e.g., at this re concept (Minn.1984); support we must discuss the of brain death. removal the life patient, on system confirmatory from а brain-dead such tests as a flat hand, is to be other considered removal EEG or a cerebral angiography showing support already from a lack of blood flow to the brain. See Cran- dead. ford, Minnesota Medical Ass’n Criteria: Criteria, Brain Concept and profession recognized has Death — concept of (1978). brain death since at least Minnesota Medicine 561-63 ASee Irreversible Definition of accepts per- the law that a brain-dead Coma, Report the Ad Hoe Committee proce- son is dead and that the criteria and the Harvard Medical School to Exam- determining dures death are estab- Death, ine the Brain Definition lished, then, say professionals, health care then, J.A.M.A. 337 Since good there secondary legal- are reasons for highly reputable organizations have af- ly declaring brain death to be death. Dr. concept.1 Forty firmed the states and the Ring pointed duty out the of the medical District Columbia have enacted statutes profession living; is to treat the to main- recognizing death as death.2 Seven *4 artificially appearance tain of life in a have, states without brain death statutes body dead is an affront dignity to human decision, by judicial recognized brain heavy and exacts a emotional toll on the death.3 patient’s family and hospital nurses concept of brain death as death is Ring and staff. Both Dr. Spiеgel and Dr. accepted, the next is a —which organs also noted that in body a brain dead separate question are the criteria what —is that brain death being support system maintained on a life has, determining in begin fact, deteriorating and soon are unusable occurred. Even under the traditional death, definition of it should transplantation. Finally, be remem- for donation and bered, procedures there is a need for Ring Dr. inappropriate mentiоned it is death, indeed, determine that has taken expensive devote scarce and resources to place. Report The Harvard lists four crite- body in maintenance a brain death situa- ria unreceptivity for brain death: and un- tion. responsitivity; breathing; no movement or concept firmly of brain death is es- reflexes; no and a flat In EEG. 1976 the in the community. tablished medical De- adopted Minnesota Medical Association dispute fendant does not the medical evi- following unresponsitivi- criteria: cerebral concept accepted by dence. has been ty; for 3 minutes a without impressive legislatures. number reflexes; respirator; no brain stem two validity No court has denied the separate clinical examinations with at least Nevertheless, concept. two considerations between; 12 hours irreversibility, specifi- cally excluding give pause undertaking us possibilities hypoth- answer and, intoxication; appropriate ermia or certified adoption
1.In
1975 the American Bar Association House
mended
of the Uniform Determination
Delegates approved
jurisdictions.
a Definition of Death Act.
of Death Act in all
463,
(1975).
See 61 A.B.A.J.
464
In 1978 the
Hospital
amici
2. Brief of
curiae Minnesota
Asso-
National Conference of Commissioners of Uni-
Association,
adopted
form State Laws
a
ciation and Minnesota Medical
Ex-
Uniform Brain
1979,
Death Act. In
the American Medical Asso-
hibit C.
approved
ciation
a model determination of
death statute.
Fierro,
182,
3. State v.
124 Ariz.
II.
To be
conduct must be
sole cause of the end
all, it is not clear that this case
First of
Re
result and that
not the case here.
requires an answer.
system
support
moval of the life
did not
prove
guilty
To
of the crimes
defendant
produce a death that would not otherwise
charged,
prove
the state must
the defend
have occurred. See
Minnesota
generally,
causal
ant's acts were a “substantial
Practice,
(3d
1986)
142
ed.
and cases
JIG
child’s death.
factor”
See
cited;
(Second)
Torts
Restatement
238,
Sutherlin, 396 N.W.2d
240
State v.
effect,
just
443. “In
the doctors were
(Minn.1986);
Smith, 264
State v.
Minn.
stepping
let
passively
aside to
the natural
838,
307, 318-22, 119
(1962).
846-49
Course of events
from brain death to
lead
It
shown that defendant’s
must be
acts
Fierro,
death.”
common law
State v.
injured the child’s
which then led to
74,
(1979).
Ariz.
603 P.2d
See
the child’s death. Dustin Olson is now
Golston,
also
373 Mass.
Commonwealth v.
use
dead
definition. Continued
(1977),
denied,
249,
Minnesota is a “code the term means “death” to include brain death province “the would not has exclusive offend common law evolutionary principles, define statute acts shall what constitute * * this court believes it should Soto, decline the a crime *.” State invitation to consider the at this (Minn.1985). Soto, we felt con- strained to construe the term “human be-
ing,” left undefined our vehicular homi- death, marking Birth and our time on statute, cide in accordance with its common earth, are causes for wonderment. We meaning person law “born alive” and life, says Fromm, come into this Eric with- excluding hence child. unborn We not- out our against consent and we leave it our ed that the common law definition was well faith, people will. Fоr death is the time settled and had been followed in 23 of 25 when the soul leaves the body. Death jurisdictions had that considered the deepest touches our concerns about human case, Id. at 628. In defend- existence, and when the law is asked to here, too, argues ant we must con- intrude on these concerns it should do so strue the term “death” our homicide prudently, mindful of compe- its limited statutes to follow traditional common here, tence. Sometimеs such law definition of cessation of and practical matters as crime and contracts heartbeat. decide, require the legal pur- law poses, when death occurs.
Soto, however,
quite
was a
different
law,
case. The common
for criminal law
instance,
In this
where the case before
purposes,
adopted
bright-line
act,
rule
require
us does not
that we
where the
the death of a
profound
interest,
born issue raised is of
human
*6
hоmicide,
dictates,
alive
prudence
think,
was
while
the
legis-
death
we
that the
feticide,
of an
sepa-
given
unborn
was
lature
opportunity
should first be
rate crime.
legal implications
this ease we are not con-
to consider the
of brain
fronted
legislature,
with a well-understood common death.5 The
with its broad
bright-line
Instead,
law
rule.
representation,
we are con- based
its committee hear-
legal
debates,
ings,
fronted with a
definition of death
prеsents
and its floor
the
ambiguous by
rendered
public
the remarkable ad- kind of
forum this issue deserves.
past
vances of science
years;
jurisdictions
over the
30
The fact
41
that
have enacted
law,
and
constantly
subject suggests too,
the common
on
statutes
we
death,
long
judge
so
as the defendant’s acts start a
instructions to the trial
who best will have
substantially
chain of events which results in or
the feel of this case when it is tried.
death; and, further,
contributes to the
that if
еxist,
asks,
effect,
this chain of
is
causation
found to
it is not
5. The certified
in
whether
by any
broken
treatment or lack of treatment
the court should "enact” the Uniform Determi-
administered to the child
case.
the doctors in this
Act,
(1984),
nation of Death
12 U.L.A.256
includes both definitions of death and reads:
Johnson,
45,
App.2d
See State v.
60 Ohio
395
[,Determination
1.§
An indi-
Death.]
(1977),
35,
aff’d,
N.E.2d 368
56 Ohio St.2d
(1)
vidual who has sustained either
irrevers-
(1978);
State,
N.E.2d 637
722,
Cranmore v.
85 Wis.2d
circulatory
respiratory
ible cessation of
and
(Wis.Ct.Apр.1978);
think, legislative generally route that timе the comes before us. Moreover, it preferable. thought to be that is definition just new Question declined. might issues but other related needed well, them- issues lend addressed WAHL, (dissenting). Justice legislative process of edu- selves to the clearly cogently majority opinion should be What cation and deliberation. ques- in presented sets forth the issues person? for a dead of death brain the time certified to this court tion decided and clinical examinatiоn the first
When persuasively indicates the trial court and later, when, death, after or firms brain advisability including brain death tests, confirmatory the doctor further disagree only I the definition of death. declaration of death? a formal makes the decision to decline to answer death be the determination Should us. question which is before reasonable medical “in accordance date, legislature To has Minnesota states, standards,” Uniform Act or as the opportunity to enact twice been offered or specify further criteria should the law defining legislation brain death as procedures? to do so. The issue and has twice declined in an actual has now arisen as issue date, legislature has not acted. A To controversy and is within the field case introduced brain death bill was competency. Under these of this court’s legislative again session circumstances, view, should, my an- Cranford, supra. not pursued. See swer the 1987, however, amended hospitals to require Act to Gift Anatomical organ potential donors families of
inform transplantation opportunities
of the 1987 Minn. procedures involved. See
Laws, amending Minn.Stat. ch. § of a audiotape 525.94. Review hearing discloses the
legislative on the bill apparently aware committee was WEYAUS, as Trustee Natalie death cases of death determination Christopher Heirs and Next of Kin of gift pro- necessary if the anatomical decedent, Petitioner, Weyaus, Appеl Hearings on gram work. See was to lant, House File No. 23 before Committee House Services, 1987 Minn. and Human Health SAM, Douglas Respondent. (audiotapes). Legis., Feb. No. C2-87-2047. *7 urgent appeal demonstrates This legislative sympathize action. We need for Supreme Minnesota. Court physicians and dedicated with conscientious Jan. professionals confronted and health care what, daily legal uncertainty in almost them, practice. We noted, too, important legal is- cer- involving death which are
sues legisla- to surface. The
tain at time and we trust
ture is now in session urgency. For rea- our sense of
shares to an- given, we decline at this time
sons legisla-
swer the certified act, promptly
ture does not