Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Supreme Court Digest: Sept. 20, 2017

Minnesota Lawyer//September 21, 2017//

Supreme Court Digest: Sept. 20, 2017

Minnesota Lawyer//September 21, 2017//

Listen to this article



Workers’ Compensation

Rehabilitation Benefits

This appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) requires a determination as to when, and under what circumstances, an employer may terminate an employee’s rehabilitation benefits. Relying on the definition of “qualified employee” in an administrative rule, the compensation judge concluded that an employee was no longer eligible for rehabilitation benefits because she had obtained “suitable gainful employment.”  The WCCA reversed, holding that an employer must show “good cause” before terminating rehabilitation benefits. The Supreme Court held that (1) Minn. Stat. § 176.102, subd. 6(a), which addresses an employee’s initial eligibility for rehabilitation services, does not provide an independent mechanism for an employer to terminate rehabilitation benefits; and (2) Minn. R. 5220.0100, subps. 22 and 34, does not allow an employer to terminate an employee’s rehabilitation benefits. Affirmed.

A16-0920 Halvorson v. B&F Fastener Supply (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)






Conditional Release

In State v. Her, 862 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 2015), the Supreme Court held that the fact that a defendant was a risk-level-III offender at the time of the offense must be admitted by the defendant or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt before a court may impose a 10-year period of conditional release as part of a sentence for failing to register as a predatory offender. The issue here was whether Her applied retroactively to sentences that were imposed and became final before Her was decided. In a motion to correct his sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, respondent argued that his 10-year conditional-release term was illegal because Her applied retroactively to his sentence. The District Court granted respondent’s motion and vacated the conditional-release term. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court held that Her announced a new rule of constitutional criminal procedure that does not apply to the collateral review of respondent’s sentence. Reversed.

A15-1823 State v. Meger (Court of Appeals)





Attorney Discipline


Brian Campbell Fischer was conditionally reinstated to the practice of law, and placed on probation for two years.

A15-1483 In re Fischer


Top News

See All Top News

Legal calendar

Click here to see upcoming Minnesota events

Expert Testimony

See All Expert Testimony