OPINION
Employee sought review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirming a compensаtion judge’s determination that the employer-insurer’s notice of intention to discontinue compensation benefits filed in May 1981 had not complied with Minn.Stat. § 176.241 (1980) and that employee was entitled to receive temporary total disability benefits from the date of discontinuance through April 30, 1982. Employee contends that there is not substantial support in the evidence for thе finding that from May 1982 to December 29, 1983 (the date of hearing on his objection to the discontinuance of benefits) he had been totally disabled by depression to which his work injury, sustained in March 1977, was not a substantial contributing cause and for the finding that he had failеd to make a reasonably diligent effort to obtain employment during that period. He insists also that the employer-insurer’s imрroper notice of discontinuance of benefits entitled him to continuing compensation as a matter of law until thе date of the hearing. We affirm.
With respect to the first issue, our review of the record reveals that the challenged findings, сontrary to employee’s claim, are supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record. Consequеntly, the WCCA properly performed its appellate review function in affirming them.
See Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees,
Employee’s claim that the impropеr notice of discontinuance of benefits nevertheless entitles him as a matter of law to receive temporary total disability benefits
Except where the commissioner of the department of labor and industry orders otherwise, until the notice and reports have been filed with the division, the liability of the emplоyer to make payments of compensation continues.
(Emphasis added.)
We considered this provision in
Ansari v. Harold Chevrolet, Inc.,
First of all, construing section 176.241, subd. 2, to impose an indeterminate liability on an employer-insurer who have attempted to comply with the statute imposes a harsh penalty, particularly when, as here, the employee fails to object to the discontinuancе within a reasonable period of time 1 and the proof establishes that he has not continued to be disabled by his work injuries thrоughout that period.
The policy underlying section 176.241 also does not support imposing liability on an employer-insurer who hаve filed a deficient notice. The statute as a whole was designed to ensure that employers and insurers do not discоntinue payment of compensation without giving an employee notice of their intended action and an adequate explanation of the reasons for it. The filing and service of a notice, even though it does not comply with all rеquirements of section 176.241, subd. 1, does inform the employee that his benefits will be discontinued, thus enabling him to file an objection to their discontinuance and to demand full compliance with the statute. If he does this and it is established that the discontinuance was groundless and unreasonable, the employee may be awarded a penalty pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 176.225. This being true, it seems unlikely thаt the legislative intent would have been to impose an indeterminate liability on the employer-insurer who have filed a deficient notice.
Finally, when an employer-insurer have attempted to comply with the statute, imposing continuing liability for сompensation to an employee no longer disabled by his work injury is inconsistent with the Workers’ Compensation Act as a whоle, which requires employers to compensate employees for injuries or death arising out of and in the coursе of employment. Minn.Stat. § 176.021, subd. 1 (1984). Consequently,
The finding that employee’s disability caused by the work injury continued only through April 30, 1982, determined the extent of the employer-insurer’s liability, and employee was not entitled to compensation after that date.
Affirmed.
Notes
. The employee did not file an objection to the discontinuance of benefits until July 14, 1983.