A deeply divided Supreme Court of Minnesota recently held that the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 176.021 requires the employee to demonstrate that the injury arises out of and in the course of the employment, that in order to establish a claim the employee bears the burden of proof on both the “arising out of” and the “in the course of” elements; the statute does not leave room for the so-called “work-connection” test—erroneously applied by the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals—that relaxes that burden simply because the injury occurred during the work day or on the employer's premise. The majority indicated that the work-connection test would improperly allow a court to consider the statutory elements as alternatives—that is, to balance the two factors against each other in a fashion that could relieve the employee of the burden of proof on one element if there was strong evidence of the other element. Three justices, quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, dissented.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 2013 Minn. LEXIS 777 (Dec. 26, 2013) [2013 Minn. LEXIS 777 (Dec. 26, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 3.03, 29.01 [3.03, 29.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
Price $99*; Books shipping now to customers!
Keep track of how the workers' comp landscape is changing with this 400+ page compendium. Here's what you get:
View the brochure & table of contents.
View sample pages.
Order online or contact Christine Hyatt at ph. 937-247-8166, or Email: Christine.E.Hyatt@lexisnexis.com.
*Price does not include sales tax, shipping or handling. Price subject to change without notice.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site