Clabo v. Bor-Son Construction Co.

481 N.W.2d 47, 1992 Minn. LEXIS 47, 1992 WL 28949
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedFebruary 21, 1992
DocketC1-91-2044
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 481 N.W.2d 47 (Clabo v. Bor-Son Construction 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
Clabo v. Bor-Son Construction Co., 481 N.W.2d 47, 1992 Minn. LEXIS 47, 1992 WL 28949 (Mich. 1992).

Opinion

COYNE, Justice.

Certiorari was granted to review a decision of the workers’ compensation court of appeals affirming the calculation of the weekly wage of a construction worker.

The employee is a bricklayer in the construction industry. While employed by Bor-Son Construction Company, he sustained a compensable injury for which he received compensation first for temporary total disability and later for temporary partial disability. Within 90 days after he returned to work full-time, he was laid off for lack of work and received monitoring period compensation until he found a job with another employer. The compensation judge calculated employee’s weekly wage in accordance with the formula for the construction industry instead of the 26-week formula for irregular wages, the method used by the employer/insurer when paying benefits. Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 3 (1990). On appeal, the WCCA affirmed under Berry v. Walker Roofing Co., 473 N.W.2d 312 (Minn.1991).

The employer/insurer contends the construction industry provision violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. We think not. Here, there is a rational distinction between part-time or irregular employment and the construction industry in which full-time employment is affected by seasonal conditions. Providing a simple method for computing the wage basis in the construction industry as full-time employment, rather than averaging the wages over one-half the year is rational. It would seem the employer/insurer’s challenge to the construction industry provision is more appropriately directed to the legislature for debate and deliberation. See Moes v. City of St. Paul, 402 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Minn.1987).

Affirmed.

The employee is awarded $400 in attorney fees.

YETKA, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Related

Keklah v. Gebert's Floor Coverings
511 N.W.2d 437 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1994)
Mitchell v. Steffen
504 N.W.2d 198 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 N.W.2d 47, 1992 Minn. LEXIS 47, 1992 WL 28949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clabo-v-bor-son-construction-co-minn-1992.