Minnesota Lawyer
Civil
Workers’ Compensation
Gillette Injuries
Respondent-employee was injured during her employment with relator-employer and sought benefits for a Gillette injury, which occurs when the cumulative effects of minute, repetitive trauma are serious enough to disable an employee. A compensation judge determined employee was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because of her Gillette injury. Employer appealed and the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed the compensation judge’s findings and conclusions.
The Supreme Court held that (1) the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s Gillette injury culminated in October 2015 was not manifestly contrary to the evidence; (2) under Minn. Stat. § 176.141and precedent, the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s statutory notice period for her injury began in March 2019 was not manifestly contrary to the evidence; and (3) the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s bus aide job was representative of her post-injury earning capacity was not manifestly contrary to the evidence. Affirmed.
A22-0803 Schmidt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)
Criminal
Bench Trials
Factual Findings
A grand jury indicted defendant with several offenses, including first-degree premeditated murder second-degree intentional murder, and attempted second-degree intentional murder. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and submitted his case to the District Court. Before the District Court began its deliberations, defendant asked the court to consider the lesser included offense of second-degree unintentional felony murder during deliberations. The court denied the request. In its written findings of fact, the court made a finding related to defendant’s defense, which was not supported by the record, concerning business closures at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court used this finding as part of its assessment of defendant’s credibility. Based on the record as a whole, the court found defendant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted second-degree murder. On direct appeal, defendant sought reversal of his convictions and a new trial. He claimed that the District Court’s pandemic-related finding based on facts not in the record reflected a structural error that deprived him of an impartial finder of fact. He also asserted that the court’s refusal to consider second-degree felony murder during deliberations was reversible error.
The Supreme Court held that (1) although the District Court clearly erred when, during a bench trial, the court made a finding that was not supported by the record, the clearly erroneous finding was harmless, and a new trial was not warranted under jurisprudence concerning the impartiality of a finder of fact; and (2) the District Court’s failure to consider a charge of second-degree unintentional felony murder during its deliberations was harmless because the court considered the charges of first-degree murder and second-degree intentional murder and found defendant guilty of the more serious charge. But, as a matter of best practice, a District Court should conduct a Dahlin analysis on the record during a bench trial after receiving an express request to consider a lesser-included offense by a defendant.
A21-1585 State v. Lopez (Dakota County)
Orders
Attorney Discipline
Suspension
Clayton D. Halunen was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for 1 year.
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
Summary Dispositions
The decision on review in this matter was affirmed without opinion.
A22-1574 Darvell v. Wherley Motors, Inc.
