Meyering v. Wessels
| Decision Date | 21 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C3-85-1355,C3-85-1355 |
| Citation | 383 N.W.2d 670 |
| Parties | Fred MEYERING, Relator, v. Marvin K. WESSELS, uninsured, State Treasurer, Custodian of the Special Compensation Fund, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The facts in this case mandate that cash wages paid to farm laborers working on separate farms operated by the same family be aggregated to determine whether the owner-operator is entitled to be excluded from the obligations imposed upon employers by the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Law.
Michael D. LaFountaine, Fairmont, for relator.
Richard D. Berens, Fairmont, for Wessels.
Thomas G. Lockhart, St. Paul, for Custodian of Special Compensation Fund.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
When an employer operates a farm in Minnesota and one 200 miles away in Iowa, under the facts here existing, should cash wages paid to farm employees in a single year be aggregated in determining whether the "family farm" exclusion exempts the employer from providing workers' compensation coverage? The compensation judge ruled they should not. Her decision was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals.
We reverse.
Fred Meyering, a farm worker on a Minnesota farm operated by Marvin Wessels, sustained a work-related injury resulting in permanent partial disability of his left hand. 1 His workers' compensation claim was rejected by the compensation judge who determined that it was excluded by Minn.Stat. §§ 176.041, subd. 1, and 176.011, subd. 11a (1984). 2 The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed. At issue is whether Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 11a was correctly construed.
Meyering was a resident of Iowa. When he worked for Wessels, more than 98 percent of his time was spent working on a farm owned and operated by the Wessels family in Minnesota. That family also owned and operated a farm 200 miles away in Iowa. All members of the Wessels family operating the farms lived on or near the Iowa farm. No member of the family lived on or near the Minnesota farm, nor was there even an occupied residential building on the Minnesota farm. Each farm had its separate complement of farm machinery. Tractors, planters, and cultivators used on the Minnesota farm were stored near or in buildings on the Minnesota farm. One exception involved a harvesting combine which was used on both farms. The Minnesota farm was a soybean and corn cash crop operation. No livestock was raised there.
In 1981, Wessels paid cash wages totaling less than $8,000 to employees working on the Minnesota farm. In the same year, Wessels paid almost $10,000 cash wages to employees working on the Iowa farm. Separate books were kept for each farm, and separate schedules for the expenses of each farm's operation were attached to Schedule F of Wessels' federal income tax return.
The Minnesota compensation judge held that the employer's Minnesota farm operation fell into the statutory category of "family farm" because cash wages paid to employees working on that farm in 1981 were less than $8,000. The judge ruled so, notwithstanding that if cash wages paid on the Iowa farm were added to the Minnesota wages, the total would greatly exceed the statutory limitation. A majority of the WCCA panel agreed with the compensation judge's view that the Wessels have basically two separate farm operations. The majority, therefore, concluded the legislature had been "interested in regulating family farm operations in Minnesota without consideration of other business activities which an employer may have in other states."
To the contrary, the dissenting judge read "any farm operation," as used in Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 11a (1984), as including all aspects of the employer's farming business, whether in Minnesota or Iowa, and no matter how far the geographical separation. If this interpretation is accepted, it follows the "family farm" exclusion is inapplicable, and that dismissal of Meyering's workers' compensation claim was erroneous.
Arguably, the workers' compensation judge, in ruling the "family farm" exclusion was here applicable, made a finding of fact. If her conclusions were factual findings, without doubt evidence does exist to support them. Therefore, in affirming, the majority of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals correctly applied the review standards set forth in Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1984). However, it appears to us the determination of whether Wessels' Minnesota farm operation comes within the "family farm" exclusion is a conclusion of law, or, at least, a mixed question of fact and law. As such, a lower court ruling does not bind this court, and we can independently review the ruling on appeal. See A.J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 579, 582 (Minn.1977).
Turning, then, to the statute, few clues relative to legislative intent are ascertainable from the precise statutory language. The statute itself merely defines "family farm" as one where the operator paid less than $8,000 in cash wages the preceding calendar year. This, of course, does not aid us in determining whether the legislature intended the exclusion to apply to geographically separated farm operations conducted by the same person when the total of cash wages paid to employees on all operations exceeded $8,000. Nor does it provide us with a clue as to whether the legislature intended the exclusion from workers' compensation coverage to apply to those who conducted essentially separate farm operations, one of which is in Minnesota, and the other or others in foreign states.
While being far from conclusive, the legislative history of section 176.011, subdivision 11a suggests that "family farm" as used in the statute refers to only those small farm operations where cash paid to farm help is incidental. Historically, in Minnesota, as well as in other states, farm operators were excluded from the burden of providing workers' compensation coverage for farm employees. In Minnesota this exclusion early survived constitutional challenge. See Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co., 126 Minn. 286, 148 N.W. 71 (1914). The exclusion of farm operations from mandatory workers' compensation coverage seemed clearly to reflect the legislative policy of the state, at least...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co., LIBBY-OWENS-FORD
...on mixed questions of law and fact are not binding on an appellate court but are subject to independent review. Meyering v. Wessels, 383 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Minn.1986). LOF contends this case involves allegations of negligent loading procedures, not the negligent design of a product. We agree ......
-
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Com'n of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, C7-89-1206
...a factual determination and then secondly, independently review the trial court's ultimate conclusions of law. Cf. Meyering v. Wessels, 383 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Minn.1986). In this case the trial court submitted the issue of whether the aircraft noise impacting appellants' property constituted ......
-
Bondy v. Allen, C0-01-28.
...on mixed questions of law and fact are not binding on an appellate court and are subject to independent review. Meyering v. Wessels, 383 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Minn.1986). Joint and several liability is imposed under the SII rule when "two or more persons acting independently cause harm to a thir......
-
Conservatorship of Foster, In re
...824, 826 (Minn.1989). A trial court's rulings on mixed questions of fact and law will be independently reviewed. Meyering v. Wessels, 383 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Minn.1986). Foster alleges that the statutory and administrative procedures fail to adequately protect her from being deprived of her fu......