Ross v. Northern States Power Co.

• Decision Date: 07 July 1989
• Docket Number: No. C8-89-131,C8-89-131
• Citation: 442 N.W.2d 296
• Parties: Steven A. ROSS, Relator, v. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, Self-Insured, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 296

442 N.W.2d 296

Steven A. ROSS, Relator, v. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, Self-Insured, Respondent.

No. C8-89-131.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 7, 1989.

Syllabus by the Court.

Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.135, subd. 1(a) (1988) requires an employer to pay for nursing care provided by a member of an employee's family if the employer knows of the need for the services, they are beyond the scope of normal household duties, performed under the direction and control of a physician, and capable of valuation.

Jerry Lindberg, St. Cloud, for relator.

James Waldhauser, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

YETKA, Justice.

This case involves the question of whether the Workers' Compensation Act requires an employer to pay for out-patient nursing services provided by an injured worker's spouse when the employee is not permanently and totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals denied recovery from the date the employer notified the employee that it would no longer make such payments. We reverse the WCCA and order reimbursement for the total cost of services rendered.

This case is before us on stipulated facts. On July 29, 1986, Steven A. Ross (employee) was burned over 40% of his body while working for Northern States Power Company (NSP). He underwent skin graft surgery and was hospitalized for 18 days. As a result of his injury, the employee was temporarily totally disabled through November 1986 and temporarily partially disabled until March 1987. He returned to work part time for NSP in November 1986 and on a full-time basis in July 1987.

When the employee left the hospital, he was unable to change his own bandages and needed assistance in bathing. His wife (Ronda Ross) was trained to provide this care and to remove staples left from the skin graft surgery. She spent 2 to 4 hours a day bathing her husband, applying lotion to his burns, and changing and cleaning bandages. The parties stipulated to the fact "[t]hat the care and treatment provided by Ronda Ross was reasonable, necessary and causally related to the employee's work injury of July 29, 1986." They also agree that the charges for the services were fair, reasonable, and in accord with the workers' compensation fee schedule.

NSP paid Ronda Ross $6 an hour for her services from the time her husband returned home through June 1, 1987 (a total of $4,566). On July 20, 1987, the Rosses submitted a bill for nursing services provided by Ronda Ross from June 2, 1987 through July 16, 1987. NSP refused to pay this bill. On July 23, 1987, the Rosses received a letter from NSP advising them that it would no longer accept charges for Mrs. Ross's care. The Rosses sent another bill for care provided through August 10, 1987, which NSP also refused to pay. The employee eventually filed an M-4 request of $1,344 for services provided by Ronda Ross through September 14, 1987.

A settlement conference was held and NSP was ordered to pay the total $1,344. NSP then requested a formal hearing where the compensation judge awarded payment to the Rosses for services provided from June 2, 1987, through July 23, 1987. The Rosses' claim for services provided after they had received notice that no further payments would be made was denied. In his memorandum, the compensation judge interpreted Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.135, subd. 1(a) (1988) as providing the employer with a clear statutory defense to payment in this case. The last sentence of that statute reads: "The employer shall pay for the reasonable value of nursing services by a member of the employee's family in cases of permanent total disability." Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.135, subd. 1(a). The compensation judge concluded that the statute creates an exclusive category for permanent disability and, therefore, if an employee's disability is temporary total, temporary partial or permanent partial, the employer is not required to pay for nursing services provided by a family member. Accordingly, the employer's responsibility, according to the compensation judge, arose as the result of a lawful contract for personal services which was terminated on July 23, 1987. The compensation judge rejected an estoppel theory because the services provided by Mrs. Ross after July 23, 1987, clearly were not given in reliance on a promise of payment.

In a 2-1 opinion, the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed the findings and order of the compensation judge. Thus, the issue raised by this appeal is whether nursing services provided by an employee's spouse are reimbursable when the employee is not permanently totally disabled. The relevant statute provides:

The employer shall furnish any medical * * * treatment, including nursing, * * * as may reasonably be required at the time of the injury and any time thereafter to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury. * * * In case of the employer's inability or refusal seasonably to do so, the employer is liable for the reasonable expense incurred by or on behalf of the employee in providing the same * * *. The employer shall pay for the reasonable value of nursing services by a member of the employee's family in cases of permanent total disability.

Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.135, subd. 1(a) (1988). The issue before us is essentially one of statutory construction. As such, it is a question of law and subject to de novo review. See In re M.J.M., 416 N.W.2d 142, 146 (Minn.App.1987); A.J. Chromy Constr. Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Serv., Inc., 260 N.W.2d 579, 582 (Minn.1977).

The employer argues that it is clear from the plain, unambiguous language of Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.135, subd. 1(a) that nursing services performed by a family member will be reimbursed only when the employee suffers a permanent total disability. One problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the language at the beginning of the statute and violates the rule that we must try to give effect to all provisions of a statute. See Northern Border Pipeline Co. v. Jackson County, 512 F.Supp. 1261, 1264 (D.Minn.1981). The first part of the statute provides that an employer shall furnish "any * * * treatment, including nursing * * * to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury." Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.135, subd. 1(a). This language is practically rendered meaningless if, when that treatment is provided by a family member, it is only going to be paid in cases of permanent total disability.

Another difficulty with the interpretation urged by the employer is that it would produce ironic results in many circumstances. In the instant case, for example, the employer would have had to pay for the care provided by Ronda Ross if it had been done at a hospital or by a nurse who visited the home. By having Mrs. Ross provide the care at a lower cost, the Rosses actually decreased the employer's expenses. Since someone had to care for the employee, it benefited both parties that a family member was willing and able to do so.

The employer and the WCCA cite Lundgren v. Paul Schmitt Music Co., 296 Minn. 517, 207 N.W.2d 534 (1973), in support of their position that the last sentence of section 176.135, subdivision 1(a) creates an exclusive category, applying only in cases of permanent total disability. Lundgren involved a paraplegic who had been awarded, by agreement, payments of $125 per month for a limited time for home nursing care provided by his wife. After the payments stopped under the agreement, the employee petitioned for continued payments of $100 a week for his wife's services. Id. The compensation judge awarded $70 a week despite the fact that the issue of permanent total disability had not been adjudicated. The Workmen's Compensation Commission affirmed and the employer appealed, arguing that the employee's injury did not bring him within the definition of permanent and total disability and, therefore, his wife's expenses were not reimbursable. Id. at 518, 207 N.W.2d at 535. This court reversed and remanded, stating: "We agree that the commission was without authority to adjudicate the threshold issue of permanent and total disability in the absence of any such claim made by the employee." Id.

Lundgren is distinguishable from the instant case because the issue before the court was whether the commission could adjudicate permanent disability when the claim had not been made by the employee. Moreover, that decision reflects the statutory distinction which the employee today asks us to recognize. The petitioner in Lundgren was a paraplegic, and his wife was seeking payment for the daily care he would need on a permanent basis. Conversely, Ronda Ross is only asking to be paid for the limited services she provided which enabled her husband to recover completely from his injury. Under these circumstances, the court properly concluded in Lundgren that a finding of permanent and total disability was a prerequisite to payment for continuous general nursing care.

Prior to 1953, Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.15 only required the employer to furnish nursing treatment "to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury." That same general...