Black v. Honeywell, Inc., No. C9-96-593
Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Writing for the Court | STRINGER; KEITH |
Citation | 551 N.W.2d 486 |
Parties | David L. BLACK, Relator, v. HONEYWELL, INC., Self-Insured/Sedgwick James of Minn., Respondent. |
Docket Number | No. C9-96-593 |
Decision Date | 25 July 1996 |
Page 486
v.
HONEYWELL, INC., Self-Insured/Sedgwick James of Minn., Respondent.
John T. Anderson, Minneapolis, for relator.
Michael J. Patera, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Michael Schoff, St. Paul, for intervenor Minn. Dept. of Human Services.
Considered and decided by the court en banc.
STRINGER, Justice.
Certiorari on the relation of David L. Black to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals denying his petition to vacate an award on stipulation. We affirm.
David L. Black has a long history of back problems, dating back to at least 1977 when he sustained compression fractures at the T12-L1 in an automobile accident when he was still in high school. Following a course of chiropractic care, Black's back problems resolved, and he subsequently was employed in various positions as a machine operator, restaurant worker, and an automobile mechanic, before becoming employed as a janitor for Honeywell in 1979. While working for Honeywell, Black sustained compensable low back injuries in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. Many of Black's symptoms were similar over the years, generally involving mid-thoracic and parathoracic pain, and in 1984, Black's physician noted that he had
Page 487
spasm from T8 through T12. A CT scan done in October 1984 showed mild degenerative central bulging of the disc annulus at L4-5, mild scoliosis and moderately severe hyperlordosis, an "old compression fracture of [the] L1 with disruption of the adjacent T12-L1 and L1-2 disc with moderate disc space narrowing." In January 1985, Honeywell registered Black with the Special Compensation Fund for a 10.5% whole body impairment for the old compression fracture at L1 and decreased disc space at T12 and L1, L2. In June 1985, Black sustained a non-compensable injury while lifting a cooler out of the trunk of his car; and in July 1985, his employment with Honeywell was terminated. In October 1985, Black began working as a school bus driver.In December 1985, Black was examined by Dr. Michael Davis, an orthopedic consultant. Dr. Davis believed Black had a chronic lumbosacral strain superimposed on old compression fractures at T11 and T12. Dr. Davis also said Black had "permanent residuals referable to his low back" and that his "problem [was] due to a combination of factors including the automobile accident in 1977, the several work related injuries, and the non-work related injury of June 1985." Dr. Davis thought it too early to assign a disability rating but suggested Black observe restrictions on lifting over 25 pounds, bending, and sitting or standing for prolonged periods of time.
In March 1990, Black sought medical care at the University of Minnesota for complaints of low back pain. This was diagnosed as chronic "non specific" low back pain, as diagnostic studies were not thought significant, and Black was advised to enroll in a rehabilitation program. In the summer of 1990, Black left his bus driving job, became a truck driver, and continued to have back problems similar to those he had at Honeywell.
In January 1991, Black was again seen at the University of Minnesota Hospital for his low back pain. Because he was doing "reasonably well" and did not wish to pursue surgical intervention, he was advised to continue with a home conditioning program. He was also told that if he felt chiropractic care helped, there was "no contra-indication" to that. Black thereafter sought intermittent chiropractic care.
Meanwhile, Black filed a claim for permanent partial disability benefits, and Honeywell filed a notice of intention to discontinue temporary partial benefits. In late 1991, Black and Honeywell negotiated a settlement for $29,000, less attorney fees. The settlement agreement recited that Black accepted the lump sum payment "as a full, final and complete settlement" for all claims, except claims for medical benefits, arising out of his injuries at Honeywell. The settlement agreement incorporated an earlier agreement that included payment for an 8% impairment to close out a claim for 10.5%. The settlement agreement was approved and an award issued on December 2, 1991. In October 1993, Black moved a child's desk up a staircase at his home; and at 4:00 a.m. the following morning, he awoke with severe back pain. This was diagnosed as a recurrent back strain and treated with physical therapy. An MRI done in November 1993 showed a moderate disc herniation at T11-T12 and broad based disc bulging at L4-5. After a discussion of treatment options, conservative management was recommended at that time. In March 1994, however, following a referral to Dr. Garry M. Banks at the Midwest Spine Institute and additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abraham v. County of Hennepin, No. CX-00-835
...both the MHRA and the Whistleblower Act, because the MHRA expressly provides that its procedure, while pending, shall be exclusive.6 551 N.W.2d at 486. Williams is clearly distinguishable from the instant case in that neither the Whistleblower Act nor MOSHA includes an exclusive remedy prov......
-
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. MMWC, No. C0-00-164.
...(Minn.1996). We held in Williams that the exclusivity provision of the MHRA barred a separate claim under section 181.932. Williams, 551 N.W.2d at 486. In a footnote, we described section The popular title of the [Whistleblower] Act connotes an action by a neutral—one who is not personally ......
-
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing, A16-2017
...to vacate the award. We review the WCCA's decision to vacate Hudson's award for an abuse of discretion. Black v. Honeywell, Inc. , 551 N.W.2d 486, 488 (Minn. 1996). A court "abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is inconsistent with the facts in......
-
Miller v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Minn., A18-2140
...the supreme court still held that an MWA claim could not be maintained because of the exclusivity provision in the MHRA. Williams, 551 N.W.2d at 486. The same is true here. Even though the plain language of section 363A.04 speaks only of an exclusive procedure, applicable while an MHRA clai......
-
Abraham v. County of Hennepin, No. CX-00-835
...both the MHRA and the Whistleblower Act, because the MHRA expressly provides that its procedure, while pending, shall be exclusive.6 551 N.W.2d at 486. Williams is clearly distinguishable from the instant case in that neither the Whistleblower Act nor MOSHA includes an exclusive remedy prov......
-
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. MMWC, No. C0-00-164.
...(Minn.1996). We held in Williams that the exclusivity provision of the MHRA barred a separate claim under section 181.932. Williams, 551 N.W.2d at 486. In a footnote, we described section The popular title of the [Whistleblower] Act connotes an action by a neutral—one who is not personally ......
-
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing, A16-2017
...to vacate the award. We review the WCCA's decision to vacate Hudson's award for an abuse of discretion. Black v. Honeywell, Inc. , 551 N.W.2d 486, 488 (Minn. 1996). A court "abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is inconsistent with the facts in......
-
Miller v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Minn., A18-2140
...the supreme court still held that an MWA claim could not be maintained because of the exclusivity provision in the MHRA. Williams, 551 N.W.2d at 486. The same is true here. Even though the plain language of section 363A.04 speaks only of an exclusive procedure, applicable while an MHRA clai......