Nicholas Rowe v. City of Minneapolis
The Rowe v. City of Minneapolis decision addresses how an employer and insurer can rebut the statutory presumption that certain first responders’ post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) diagnoses are occupational diseases for purposes of workers’ compensation. Under Minn. Stat. §176.011, subd. 15, if a first responder qualifies for the presumption that PTSD is work-related then the employer and insurer can only rebut that presumption by substantial factors.
In Rowe the employee sought psychological treatment following multiple significant events over the course of his career as a Minneapolis police officer. His counselor diagnosed him with PTSD.
At the employee’s request, Dr. Kasey Aleknavicius performed an independent psychological evaluation (IPE). In his report, Dr. Aleknavicius relied on the DSM-5-TR to diagnose Rowe with PTSD and major depressive disorder.
In response to this diagnosis Dr. Kenneth Young performed an IPE at the request of the employer and insurer. Dr. Young determined that Rowe did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in the DSM-5. Dr. Young’s November 2022 report did not mention the DSM-5-TR.
A hearing was held to determine the employee’s eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. The compensation judge found that Dr. Young’s opinion was more persuasive than that of Dr. Aleknavicius, and held that the employer had established substantial factors rebutting the presumption. Specifically, the compensation judge found that Dr. Young’s use of the outdated DSM-5 instead of the current DSM-5-TR to diagnose Rowe’s condition was a “red herring and irrelevant.”
The employee appealed and the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (“WCCA”) vacated the compensation judge’s order and determined that the judge erred by adopting the employer and insurer’s IPE based on an outdated version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Ultimately the Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed with the WCCA’s determination that an IPE based on the most recently published edition of the DMS was the only proof that could constitute “substantial factors” to rebut the presumption.
Final Takeaway
While the Minnesota Supreme Court did hold that an expert report does not need to rely on the most recent version of the DSM to rebut the presumption, it is still best practice to make sure that your experts are using the current version of the DSM in order to avoid unnecessary issues.
Author credit
Casey A. Brown | Attorney at Law
612.312.3265 | CBrown@aafedt.com
Casey A. Brown is an associate with the firm Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson & Hager, P.A. She received her Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in 2023.
