In Shire, the Court addressed two issues related to the exception contained in Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, a provision providing employers with protection for injuries that occur at work-sponsored recreational events. The exception, in sum, provides that injuries occurring during “voluntary recreational programs” are not covered because they “do not arise out of […]
MN Supreme Court Confirms That Mandatory Appellate Procedures Are, In Fact, Mandatory
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Dennis v. The Salvation Army, __ N.W.2d __, No. A15-0715 (Minn. Feb. 3, 2016) in which it clarified and confirmed that when making an appeal to the Supreme Court (hereinafter also referred to as the “Court”) on a workers’ compensation matter, a failure to comply with […]
Flag on the Play! WCCA Calls a Foul on NFL Player’s Attempt to Circumvent the Work Comp. Rules
It often seems like professional athletes are above the law. Not so, however, when it comes to Workers’ Compensation. The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) recently ruled, in Jenkins v. Minnesota Vikings that even NFL players must abide by the workers ’ compensation laws if they want to receive workers ’ compensation benefits. […]
Minnesota Supreme Court Addresses Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision on July 23, 2015 addressing res judicata and collateral estoppel in a workers’ compensation claim. Mach, Jr. v. Wells Concrete Prods. Co., __ N.W.2d ___ (Minn. 2015). By way of background res judicata is a doctrine that precludes claims when a prior claim involved the same cause […]
Common Enterprise Means No Common Recovery in Workers’ Compensation Matters
The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently issued an unpublished decision confirming that employees are precluded from bringing a negligence claim against parties engaging in a “common enterprise” with their employer when the employee sustains a work-related injury arising out of and in the course and scope of their employment with that employer. In Schirmers vs. […]
