Mayer v. Erickson Decorators, C4-85-84

• Decision Date: 16 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. C4-85-84,C4-85-84
• Citation: 372 N.W.2d 729
• Parties: James MAYER, Relator, v. ERICKSON DECORATORS and Bituminous Insurance Cos., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 729

372 N.W.2d 729

James MAYER, Relator, v. ERICKSON DECORATORS and Bituminous Insurance Cos. Respondents.

No. C4-85-84.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 16, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

Proof that an injured employee has suffered a reduction in earning capacity is not alone enough to entitle the employee to receive temporary disability benefits under Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.101, subd. 2 (1982). An employee who is capable of working subject to the limitations of his physical impairment is required to cooperate with rehabilitation efforts and, when those efforts are aimed at finding such work, to make a reasonably diligent effort to obtain employment.

John T. Anderson, Minneapolis, for relator.

J. Mark Catron, St. Paul, for respondents.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

SCOTT, Justice.

In this case the employer-insurer filed a notice of intention to discontinue payment of temporary total disability compensation to the employee on the ground he had not cooperated with rehabilitation plans. Upon his objection to the discontinuance of payments, a compensation judge found that employee was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits between the date of discontinuance and the date of hearing. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals reversed, substituting a finding that employee was not entitled to temporary total disability or to temporary partial disability compensation during this period because he failed to cooperate in rehabilitation efforts and did not make a diligent effort to find work within his limitations. We have concluded that the decision of the WCCA must be affirmed.

Employee's claims of error do not require extended discussion. He contends that the WCCA exceeded its appellate review powers in reversing the compensation judge's finding that he was temporarily partially disabled because that finding had substantial support in the parties' agreement at the hearing that employee, a painter at the time of his injury in December 1980, had then been earning $480 a week and in evidence that at the time of the hearing he could not perform such work and was capable of performing lighter work which paid between $3 and $4 an hour. Without disputing this evidence, the WCCA found that employee nevertheless was not entitled to temporary total or temporary partial disability benefits between the date of discontinuance, August 15, 1982, and the date of the hearing before the compensation judge, May 3, 1984, because of his failure to cooperate in rehabilitation efforts and to make a reasonably diligent effort to find work within his limitations. The majority of the WCCA panel reversed the compensation judge's determination that proof of reduced earning capacity alone qualifies an employee for temporary disability payments. In effect, they held the compensation judge's finding of temporary partial disability erroneous as a matter of law and then substituted the determination which they concluded was required by the total evidence. Their jurisdiction to decide questions of law as well as questions of fact is expressly provided by Minn.Stat. Sec. 175A.01, subd. 2 (1982). The employer-insurer's appeal placed in question whether the compensation judge's finding was supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record and also whether it and the order based thereon were in conformity with the Workers' Compensation Act. The WCCA's jurisdiction to consider both aspects of the appeal is furnished by Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.421, subd. 1 (1984), and its power to review the record and substitute for the compensation judge's finding the finding it concluded was "based on the total evidence" is...