Dawn M. Simonson v. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust
This case involves a previous version of the retirement presumption under MN Statutes section 176.101, subdivision 4 (2016), in the Workers’ Compensation Act, which presumed, for the purposes of ending permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, that an employee retires from the labor market at age 67.
The Compensation Judge found that the employee had not rebutted the retirement presumption, because under the Davidson v. Thermo King factors each party had an equal number of factors in their favor. Some of these factors include the employee’s intent to retire; application for Social Security retirement benefits; evidence of a financial need for employment income, including the adequacy of a pension or other retirement income; whether the employee or the employer initiated a discussion of retirement; whether the employee sought rehabilitation assistance; and whether the employee actively sought alternative employment or was working.
On appeal, the WCCA reversed and found that the Grunst v. Immanuel-St. Joseph Hosp. case was the appropriate case to evaluate whether the retirement presumption had been rebutted and found that the employee had rebutted the presumption because, “the primary factor in determining whether the retirement presumption in a PTD case should be an employee’s financial predicament.”
The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Supreme Court agreed that Grunst was the appropriate case to use, but stated that the WCCA misapplied it. The correct test is “whether retirement could have happened anyway, even if the employee had not been disabled.” The financial status of the employee is not the primary factor to determine whether the employee has rebutted the retirement presumption. The Supreme Court remanded to the compensation judge as a trier of fact to decide.
