Stangel v. Lakehead Const. Co., 115
| Decision Date | 24 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 44828,No. 115,115,44828 |
| Citation | 235 N.W.2d 200,306 Minn. 86 |
| Parties | Forrest STANGEL, Employee, v. LAKEHEAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., Employers and Insurers, Independent School District, et al., Relators, State Treasurer, Custodian of the Special Compensation Fund, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Carroll, Cronan, Roth & Austin and Thomas A. Foster and Timothy W. Waldeck, Minneapolis, for relators.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Peter W. Sipkins, Sol. Gen., Kenneth McCoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before OTIS, MacLAUGHLIN, and KNUTSON, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
This case reviews a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission denying a claim for reimbursement from the special compensation fund. The only issue is whether the employee was registered so as to entitle the employer and its insurer to reimbursement. We hold that he was registered and reverse.
The employee's injury occurred on March 31, 1972. The compensation judge ordered payments for temporary total disability and found that the amount of permanent partial disability could not then be determined. Although the employee had a preexisting physical impairment which was affected by the injury, the compensation judge denied relators' claim for reimbursement from the special fund because at the time of his injury he had never been formally registered pursuant to Minn.St.1971, § 176.131, subd. 4. The commission affirmed.
Minn.St. 176.131, subd. 3, entitles employers to reimbursement from the special compensation fund if the employee's preexisting physical impairment has been registered with the commission prior to the occurrence of the injury for which reimbursement is sought. The issue here is whether the registration of the employee's preexisting physical impairment under an earlier statute had vested in the employer and its insurer a right to reimbursement from the Special Compensation Fund for amounts paid because of the 1972 injury. The resolution of that issue turns on our construction of Minn.St.1971, § 176.131, subd. 4, in effect on March 31, 1972. That subdivision had been amended by L.1971, c. 589, § 3, to provide:
'Any employer who hires or retains in his employment any person who has a physical impairment shall file a formal registration for each such employee with the commission in such form as the commissioner may require.'
The employer argues that a formal registration was unnecessary because the employee's injuries were already registered with the commission under an earlier statute. The special fund argues that the 1971 amendment requires all affected employers formally to reregister physically impaired employees, and that the prior statute only excused registration but did not provide an alternate method of registration. We hold the employee was registered for purposes of the special fund, and that the legislature did not intend to repeal retroactively prior registrations.
From May 7, 1965, to September 1, 1971, Minn.St. 176.131 provided that an employee was 'deemed to be registered' if specified criteria were satisfied. That statute applied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schreiner v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc.
...343, 250 N.W.2d 161 (1976) (Miller II); Lutz v. Spencer Packing Company, 304 Minn. 1, 229 N.W.2d 14 (1975); Stangel v. Lakehead Construction, 306 Minn. 86, 235 N.W.2d 200 (1975); see also Fryhling v. Acrometal Products, Inc., 269 N.W.2d 744 In Koski v. Erie Mining Co., supra, we concluded t......
-
Miller v. Norris Creameries, 45344
...contributing to the second injury is diabetes, hemophilia or seizures.'3 Minn.St. 176.131, subd. 3.4 See, Stangel v. Lakehead Const. Co. Minn., 235 N.W.2d 200--202, filed herewith, in which we held that an employee who was 'deemed to be registered' under the terms of Minn.St.1969, § 176.131......
-
Amberg v. Olivia Nursing Home, s. 45504 and 45521
...to defeat an 'automatic registration' under the preexisting and less restrictive statutory requirements. See, also, Stangel v. Lakehead Const. Co., Minn., 235 N.W.2d 200, filed October 24, The commission in this case has not ruled that Home Indemnity Company had failed to meet its burden of......
-
Miller v. Norris Creameries, 46534
...with which the registrations would not have complied. Lutz v. Spencer Packing Co., Minn., 229 N.W.2d 14 (1975); Stangel v. Lakehead Const. Co., Minn., 235 N.W.2d 200 (1975); Miller v. Norris Creameries, Minn., 235 N.W.2d 203 (1975). In these cases we determined that the 'controlling event' ......