Bliss v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.

303 N.W.2d 460, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1202
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedFebruary 13, 1981
Docket51351
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 N.W.2d 460 (Bliss v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bliss v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 303 N.W.2d 460, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1202 (Mich. 1981).

Opinions

SCOTT, Judge.

Employee seeks review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals denying his petition for temporary partial disability benefits during a 52-week [461]*461retraining course based on a finding that he was not entitled to such benefits during his period of retraining. Having concluded that this finding is without evidentiary support and is in fact contrary to the evidence, we reverse.

It is well settled that temporary partial disability is present when (1) an employee has sustained a physical disability, (2) it is temporary rather than permanent in nature, (3) it is partial, so that the employee is able to work subject to the disability, and (4) the employee has sustained an actual loss of earning capacity which is causally related to the disability. Kuehn v. State, 271 N.W.2d 308 (Minn.1978); Dorn v. A. J. Chromy Const. Co., 310 Minn. 42, 245 N.W.2d 451 (1976). The evidence in this case clearly establishes the presence of the first three elements. Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the last one had not been established, the record reveals un-contradicted evidence which establishes that employee has sustained an impairment of earning capacity because he was required in August 1977 to leave his work as a web press operator when he developed contact dermatitis due to exposure to certain chemical used on the presses.

Employee’s training did not qualify him to operate other types of presses, and the employer did not offer him any other position. Instead of attempting to obtain work with former employers or to find other employment, employee left the city to live at a small resort near Longville which he had purchased in 1972. He did some work about the resort but made no effort to find other employment in the Longville area. In January 1978 he contacted the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and underwent tests which determined that training in cabinetmaking would be appropriate. He was certified by the Division for an on-the-job retraining program in a cabinetmaker’s shop at Hackensack to last 52 weeks, during which he would earn $92 weekly or $2.30 an hour. The employer agreed to pay retraining compensation but filed notice of intention to discontinue payment of temporary total disability when the course began, claiming that additional disability compensation was not due. Employee then filed a petition seeking temporary partial disability benefits which the employer contested. It is conceded that during the 10 months prior to employee’s entry into the on-the-job program he earned no money. During this period, however, he was capable of performing any kind of work which did not expose him to the chemicals which had caused his dermatitis.

At the hearing on employee’s compensation claim the employer placed in evidence the deposition of a licensed psychologist and vocational counselor, Dr. Phillip Haber, who had tested and interviewed employee and expressed the opinion that he was capable of obtaining gainful employment in several positions at which he could begin at a wage rate of $7 or $8 an hour. At the time he was required to stop working for the employer, he was earning $8.80 an hour. In spite of this evidence the Court of Appeals found that employee was not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits during the retraining course in which he was earning $2.30 an hour. Since the evidence summarized is uncontradicted, we are required to conclude that it established that employee had sustained an impairment of earning capacity which is causally related to his disability and entitles him to an award for temporary partial disability during his retraining period. See Morrison v. Merrick’s Super Market, Inc., 300 Minn. 535, 220 N.W.2d 344 (1974). We remand for calculation of the compensation to which he is entitled.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Minnick v. South Metro Fire Protection District
926 S.W.2d 906 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
Le v. State
330 N.W.2d 453 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1983)
Bliss v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
303 N.W.2d 460 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
303 N.W.2d 460, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bliss-v-minneapolis-star-tribune-co-minn-1981.