Hartwig v. Traverse Care Ctr. & Minn. Counties Intergovernmental Trust, A14–0090.

CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPAGE
CitationHartwig v. Traverse Care Ctr., 852 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 2014)
Decision Date13 August 2014
Docket NumberNo. A14–0090.,A14–0090.
PartiesSharyn HARTWIG, Relator, v. TRAVERSE CARE CENTER and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Respondents, Continental Life Insurance, Midway Medical Clinic/Steven P. Radjenovich, D. O., Heartland Orthopedic Specialists, Intervenors.

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).

Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals.

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

Timothy P. Jung, David M. Bateson, Peter D. Stiteler, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondents.

Susan L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, Saint Paul, MN, for amici curiae League of Minnesota Cities, Association of Minnesota Counties, Minnesota Association of Townships, and Hennepin County.

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

OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

Relator Sharyn Hartwig was a certified nursing assistant employed by respondent Traverse Care Center (Traverse) when she sustained various work-related injuries between September 4, 2005, and May 5, 2010. Hartwig has been permanently and totally disabled since May 5, 2010, and has been receiving workers' compensation benefits since that date. Hartwig began receiving a retirement annuity from the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) on August 1, 2012. See generally Minn.Stat. ch. 353 (2012). She has not applied for or received any disability benefits from PERA. At some point, Hartwig began receiving federal social security retirement benefits. The statute provides that once Traverse paid $25,000 in permanent total disability benefits, Traverse was entitled, under Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2012), to offset Hartwig's permanent total disability benefits by the amount of her social security retirement benefits. The $25,000 offset trigger was reached on March 8, 2011.

The parties disagreed, however, as to whether Traverse was entitled to apply the subdivision 4 offset to Hartwig's PERA retirement benefits. Hartwig therefore filed a petition to challenge Traverse's right to apply the subdivision 4 offset to her PERA retirement benefits. Without holding a hearing, the compensation judge granted Traverse the offset. The compensation judge concluded that public employee retirement benefits are within the meaning of “government disability benefits,” as that term is defined in Minn. R. 5222.0100, subp. 4 (2013) (emphasis added).1

The WCCA disagreed with the compensation judge's interpretation of Minn. R. 5222.0100, subp. 4, but nonetheless affirmed. Hartwig v. Traverse Care Ctr. & Minn. Cntys. Intergovernmental Trust, 2013 WL 7017758, at *2, *5 (Minn. WCCA Dec. 23, 2013). The WCCA concluded based, in part, on its past decisions allowing an offset for public employee retirement benefits, that Hartwig's PERA retirement annuity was an “old age and survivor insurance benefit[ ].” Id. at *4–5 (citing Kramer v. City of St. Paul, 33 Minn. Workers' Comp. Dec. 425 (WCCA 1981), Wicks v. City of S. St. Paul, 1988 WL 216735 (Minn. WCCA Nov. 18, 1988), and Adamski v. Kenneth Setterholm's Farm, 58 Minn. Workers' Comp. Dec. 119, 121 (WCCA 1998)).

Before us, Hartwig argues, as did the employee in Ekdahl v. Independent School District # 213, 851 N.W.2d 874 (Minn.2014), that Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, does not permit permanent total disability benefits to be offset by public employee pension benefits. In Ekdahl, we held that the term “old age and survivor insurance benefits,” as used in Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, refers only to federal social security benefits received by an injured worker pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–34 (2012), and not to government-service pension benefits. As a result, w...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Oseland by Oseland v. Crow Wing County
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • May 29, 2019
    ...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 of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not allow insurers to reduce the am......
  • Bruton v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2019
    ...holding that the plain language of this statute "does not encompass" benefits paid by a state retirement fund); Hartwig v. Traverse Care Ctr. , 852 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Minn. 2014) (concluding that the offset statute "does not apply to an employee’s non-social security pension benefits"). Smith......
  • Gamble v. Productions
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 13, 2014
    ... ... A.M.F., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 310 (Minn.1979), unless the medical ... ...