Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist.

Decision Date13 August 2014
Docket NumberNo. A14–0089.,A14–0089.
Citation851 N.W.2d 874
PartiesGary EKDAHL, Relator, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 213, Self–Insured/Riverport Insurance Services, Respondent.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

The phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits,” as used in Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2012), refers to social security benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–34 (2012).

DeAnna M. McCashin, Schoep & McCashin, Chtd., Alexandria, MN, for relator.

Timothy P. Jung, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.

Charlene K. Feenstra, Joshua M. Steinbrecher, Heacox, Hartman, Koshmrl, Cosgriff & Johnson, P.A., Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Association.

Thomas J. Grundhoefer, Edward S. Cadman, MSBA Legislative Counsel, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota School Boards Association.

OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

Relator Gary Ekdahl, who was injured while working for respondent Independent School District # 213 (the School District), sought and was awarded permanent total disability benefits. The School District, relying on Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2012), requested an offset of its disability-benefit payment by the amount of government-service pension benefits Ekdahl was receiving, arguing that the statute authorizes an offset for “any old age and survivor insurance benefits.” The compensation judge denied the requested offset, concluding that Ekdahl's government-service pension benefits are not “old age and survivor insurance benefits,” as that phrase is used in Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, concluding that government-service pension benefits are included in the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits,” and thus can be offset from the School District's disability-benefit payment. Ekdahl raises two issues in this appeal: (1) whether the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits,” as used in Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, includes pension benefits received by a former government employee; and (2) if so, whether his equal protection and due process rights are violated by the statutory offset. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the WCCA and reinstate the decision of the compensation judge.

Gary Ekdahl was employed by the School District as an industrial arts teacher and volleyball coach. On September 9, 2004, Ekdahl injured his back at work. Ekdahl retired from his teaching position with the School District in 2006 due to his injuries. He discontinued his coaching duties on November 15, 2011, and has not held any gainful employment since that date.

Ekdahl has not applied for or received any benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–34 (2012). In 2006, he applied for and was awarded a retirement pension from the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA). SeeMinn.Stat. § 354.44, subd. 1 (2012) (“Any [TRA] member ... who ceases ... to render teaching services ... is entitled upon written application to a retirement annuity.”). Ekdahl has not applied for or received any TRA disability benefits. SeeMinn.Stat. § 354.48 (2012). Ekdahl eventually sought and was awarded permanent total disability benefits under the Workers Compensation Act (Act). SeeMinn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4. Relying on Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, the School District sought to offset its permanent total disability benefit payment by the amount of Ekdahl's TRA retirement pension. The compensation judge rejected the School District's claim, concluding that the School District was not entitled to the offset.

The School District appealed, and the WCCA reversed the decision of the compensation judge, holding that “after a total of $25,000 in weekly compensation has been paid, the [School District] is entitled to reduce [Ekdahl's] permanent total disability benefits by the amount of [TRA] retirement benefits.” Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. # 213, 2013 WL 7017760, at *6 (Minn. WCCA Dec. 24, 2013). Ekdahl then petitioned this court for review by certiorari.

Minnesota Statutes § 176.101, subd. 4, provides, in relevant part:

This compensation shall be paid during the permanent total disability of the injured employee but after a total of $25,000 of weekly compensation has been paid, the amount of the weekly compensation benefits being paid by the employer shall be reduced by the amount of any disability benefits being paid by any government disability benefit program if the disability benefits are occasioned by the same injury or injuries which give rise to payments under this subdivision. This reduction shall also apply to any old age and survivor insurance benefits.

(Emphasis added.) This section provides generally that after $25,000 of permanent total benefits have been paid, an employee's permanent total disability benefits are reduced by the amount of any benefits received from any government disability program. Subdivision 4 further provides that [t]his reduction shall also apply to any old age and survivor insurance benefits.” The statute does not, however, define the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits.”

Ekdahl argues that the only retirement-benefit offset from permanent total disability benefits that is authorized by the phrase “any old age and survivor insurance benefits” in section 176.101, subdivision 4, is for federal social security benefits under the Social Security Act. See42 U.S.C. §§ 401–34. The School District argues that the phrase “any old age and survivor insurance benefits” includes all government-service pension benefits, not simply federal social security benefits. The School District further argues that the Legislature's use of the word “any” before the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits” indicates that the offset is to be applied broadly. As a result, the School District contends that permanent total disability benefits may be offset by any government-service pension benefit, not just social security benefits.

The facts of this case are undisputed. Thus, resolution of the case turns on a question of law: the interpretation of the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits,” as used in section 176.101, subdivision 4. When interpreting statutory provisions, we apply a de novo standard of review. Reider v. Anoka–Hennepin Sch. Dist. No. 11, 728 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Minn.2007). We are not bound by WCCA decisions that rest upon the application of a statute to undisputed facts. Bradley v. Vic's Welding, 405 N.W.2d 243, 245 (Minn.1987). The goal of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature. Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 278 (Minn.2000). When reading a statute, we interpret words and phrases “according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage,” but we interpret “technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a special meaning ... according to such special meaning.” Minn.Stat. § 645.08(1) (2012).

The offset provision has been part of the Minnesota workers' compensation regime since 1953. See Act of Apr. 24, 1953, ch. 755, § 10, 1953 Minn. Laws 1099, 1113–14 (“This compensation shall be paid during the permanent total disability of the injured person but if the employe[e] is eligible for old age and survivors insurance benefits, such benefits shall be credited on the compensation benefits payable under this subdivision after a total of $18,000 has been paid.” (codified as amended at Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2012))). The parties agree that, as enacted in 1953, the phrase “old age and survivors insurance benefits” referred only to social security benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–34. That reading of the phrase is consistent with the technical meaning of the phrase. For example, Black's Law Dictionary defines the phrase “old-age and survivors' insurance” as:

A system of insurance, subsidized by the federal government, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 17, 2016
    ...825–26 (Minn.2013). The purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature. Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 213, 851 N.W.2d 874, 876 (Minn.2014). We interpret words employed in a statute according to their plain meaning. Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 ......
  • Oseland by Oseland v. Crow Wing County
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • May 29, 2019
    ...benefits, until his death in 2013, at which point his benefits ceased.On August 13, 2014, we decided Ekdahl v. Independent School District # 213 , 851 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. 2014), and Hartwig v. Traverse Care Center , 852 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 2014). In these cases, we held that the plain language ......
  • Webster v. Hennepin Cnty., A16-0736
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • April 18, 2018
    ...relies on two cases, one in which we reviewed a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, Ekdahl v. Independent School District #213 , 851 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. 2014), and one in which we reviewed determinations of the tax court, Questar Data Systems Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenu......
  • State v. Schouweiler
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 16, 2016
    ...consideration.” The meaning of the past-consideration exception is a question of law, which we review de novo. Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 213, 851 N.W.2d 874, 876 (Minn.2014). The purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. Christianson v. Henke, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT