Morrisette v. Harrison Intern. Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. C6-91-1231,C6-91-1231 |
| Parties | John MORRISETTE, Respondent, v. HARRISON INTERNATIONAL CORP. and Aetna Life & Casualty Company, Relators, and Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training UI, State Industrial Insurance System of Nevada, Intervenors, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A finding that an employee who initially learned of a job opening and received an application from the employer's representative in Minnesota, applied for the job by mail, interviewed for the job in another state, and accepted the job over the telephone in Minnesota, was hired in Minnesota, is not manifestly contrary to the evidence.
2. The word "transfer," as used in Minn.Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2 (1982), means the moving of an employee from a job in this state to a job in another state. An employee hired in Minnesota to work in another state is not transferred to the other state.
Kathy Endres, Gilmore, Aafedt, Forde, Anderson & Gray, P.A., Minneapolis, for relators.
Raymond Peterson, Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum, McCoy & Carey, Ltd., Minneapolis, for John Morrisette.
Laura Sue Schlatter, Minn. Dept. of Human Services, St. Paul, for Dept. of Human Services.
Wilbur Fluegel, Sieben, Grose, et al., Minneapolis, for State Ind. Ins. System of Nevada.
Richard Rhode, MN Dept. of Jobs & Training, St. Paul, for Dept. of Jobs & Training.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
This case arises from John Morrisette's application for Minnesota workers' compensation benefits, for injuries he received in 1983 while working in Nevada, and for which he had received workers' compensation benefits from the State Industrial Insurance System of Nevada (SIIS-Nevada). The compensation judge found that Morrisette was hired in Minnesota, and at the time of his injury his "transfer" to Nevada was not permanent, giving the court subject matter jurisdiction over Morrisette's claim under the extraterritorial provisions of Minnesota's Workers' Compensation Act, Minn.Stat. § 176.041 (1982). The compensation judge also found that SIIS-Nevada, the previous provider of workers' compensation benefits, properly intervened in compliance with Minn.Stat. § 176.361 (1982). The employer (Harrison) and insurer-relators (Aetna) appealed to the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, which affirmed on June 14, 1991. This appeal followed.
On January 11, 1983, John Morrisette, a 24-year-old electrical line worker, fell approximately 30 feet to the ground from atop a high power pole. The accident occurred in Ely, Nevada, where Morrisette was in his second day of employment with Electrical Distribution Contractors (EDC). Morrisette received multiple head and body injuries, was in a long-term coma and suffered permanent brain damage.
This tragic story began in the spring of 1982 when Morrisette was a student at the Dakota County Vocational Technical Institute, training to become an electrical line worker. Sometime that spring, Max Wilkinson, an employee of EDC, visited the school, talked with students about working for EDC, and passed out applications for employment. Morrisette filled out an application and mailed it to Wilkinson. After submitting his application, Morrisette corresponded with Wilkinson about the possibility of a job with EDC, sent EDC a report of a physical examination, and was interviewed by an EDC representative in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
After the interview, Wilkinson telephoned Morrisette at his home in Minnesota and told him he had a job for him in Nevada. Morrisette accepted the job, and drove to Ely, Nevada, to begin work. Morrisette believed he had a job when he left Minnesota. Morrisette, whose injuries have affected his memory, cannot remember discussing with Wilkinson what his salary and benefits were to be, and he cannot recall being paid any travel expenses or per diem for his car trip to Nevada.
Wilkinson testified that he called Morrisette and Wilkinson, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease at the time of his deposition, did not remember visiting the school or corresponding with Morrisette. He testified that EDC never paid the travel expenses for employees between job sites. He also testified that it was not EDC's policy to further interview anyone they had called to work for them after they arrived at the job site.
At the time of the accident, EDC was the name Harrison International Corporation (Harrison) was using to do its electrical line construction in the western United States. Harrison, a South Carolina corporation, was authorized to do business in Minnesota, and had appointed an agent for service of process. Harrison had obtained workers' compensation coverage in Minnesota through Aetna Life & Casualty.
EDC was in the business of constructing high power electrical transmission lines. EDC employees worked on projects mainly in the western United States, and were transient, moving from state to state to follow the line, or moving after being released at the end of an assignment and being recalled to a different job site. As far as Wilkinson knew, EDC had never had a job site in Minnesota.
When Morrisette accepted the job with EDC he knew that EDC had never worked in Minnesota, and probably never would. He understood that as an EDC employee he would travel from state to state to temporary job sites to construct electrical power lines. He hoped to gain some experience with EDC which would enable him to find work back in his home state of Minnesota. Morrisette intended to maintain his permanent residence in Minnesota. His wife remained at their home in Minnesota.
After his injury, SIIS-Nevada voluntarily instituted the payment of workers' compensation benefits to Morrisette. SIIS-Nevada paid a total of $165,001.08 to or on behalf of Morrisette, $106,596.29 for medical benefits and $58,404.79 in wage loss benefits. SIIS-Nevada discontinued paying benefits to Morrisette after Morrisette filed his application for benefits in Minnesota.
Morrisette's case was originally scheduled to be heard on September 4, 1987. However, on August 31, 1987, the case was stricken from the active calendar by order of the United States Bankruptcy Court, pending the disposition of a Harrison bankruptcy petition. The re-scheduled hearing took place June 26 and 30, 1990. On August 17, 1990, after the hearing, but prior to the issuance of the compensation judge's findings and order, SIIS-Nevada filed a motion to intervene.
This court's review of decisions of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals is limited. When reviewing findings of fact, this court views the facts in a light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb a finding unless it is manifestly contrary to the evidence or "it is clear that reasonable minds would adopt a contrary conclusion." Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 61 (Minn.1984). In reviewing questions of law determined by the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, this court is free to exercise its independent judgment. Meyering v. Wessels, 383 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Minn.1986).
The first issue for this court's review is whether Morrisette is entitled to apply for benefits under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act. When Morrisette was injured, he was an employee of a foreign corporation and was working outside the state of Minnesota. The extraterritorial application of the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act is limited by the terms of the statute itself. See Minn.Stat. § 176.041 (1990). Thus whether Morrisette's injury is compensable under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act will depend on whether the circumstances of his employment and injury fall within the applicable statute's extraterritorial application provisions. The substantive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prof'l Portable X-Ray, Inc. v. Brad Nelson, Ken Kern, & Webinterstate, Inc., Case No. 17–cv–2469 (WMW/KMM)
...must on a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs' factual allegation that PPX accepted the 1999 Proposal. See, e.g., Morrisette v. Harrison Int'l Corp. , 486 N.W.2d 424, 427 (Minn. 1992) (explaining existence and terms of contract are questions of ...
-
Stepnes v. Trautman
...v. Sukup Mfg. Co., 781 N.W.2d 578, 581-82 (Minn. 2010). The existence of a contract is a question of fact, Morrisette v. Harrison Int'l Corp., 486 N.W.2d 424, 427 (Minn. 1992), but summary judgment is appropriate if "a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party" based on ......
-
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc.
...stock from Powell. "If in dispute, the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder." Morrisette v. Harrison Int'l Corp., 486 N.W.2d 424, 427 (Minn.1992) (citation omitted). An appellate court has limited review over findings of fact, and those findings may only be ov......
-
Thomas B. Olson & Assocs., PA v. LEFFERT, JAY & POLGLAZE, PA, No. A07-2165.
...Assocs., Inc., 712 N.W.2d at 782. Whether a contract exists generally is a question for the fact-finder. Morrisette v. Harrison Int'l Corp., 486 N.W.2d 424, 427 (Minn.1992). The parties' arguments are confined to the first element. "The formation of a Contract requires communication of a sp......