Insurance benefits: Injury occurred while on duty

Minnesota Reports

MATTER OF THE CLAIM FOR BENEFITS, MEULENERS, A06-14
(Minn.App. 12-19-2006) IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM FOR
BENEFITS BY JEFFREY R. MEULENERS. No. A06-14. Minnesota
Court of Appeals. Filed: December 19, 2006.

Appeal from the Minnesota Public Safety Officer Benefit
Eligibility Panel.

SYLLABUS

When the Public Safety Officers Benefit Eligibility Panel
considers a former peace officer’s application for
continued employer-provided health-insurance benefits under
Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 (Supp. 2005), the panel may
not deny the officer’s application by relying on factors
that are not statutorily authorized or directly relevant to
whether the officer’s occupational duties or professional
responsibilities put him at risk for the type of injury
that he sustained.

Ronald Meuser, Jr., Meuser & Associates, P.A., Eden
Prairie, Minnesota 55344 (for relator Meuleners)

Michael Fahey, Carver County Attorney, Kari L.S. Myrold,
Assistant County Attorney, Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2102
(for respondent Carver County)

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Bernard E. Johnson, Assistant
Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2134 (for
respondent Minnesota Public Safety Officers Benefit
Eligibility Panel)

Considered and decided by WRIGHT, Presiding Judge;
HALBROOKS, Judge; and HUDSON, Judge.

OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

On certiorari appeal from the Public Safety Officers
Benefit Eligibility Panel’s determination order denying
relator’s application for continued employer —
provided health-insurance benefits, relator argues
that he is entitled to benefits because he suffered a
disabling injury that forced him to retire or separate from
service as a peace officer and the injury occurred while he
was acting in the course and scope of his duties as a peace
officer. Because the panel based its decision on factors
not relevant to the statutorily required determination of
whether the officer’s injury occurred in the course and
scope of duties as a peace officer, we reverse.

FACTS

Relator was a Carver County deputy sheriff for
approximately ten years before he suffered a disabling back
injury in 2001 that forced him to separate from service as
a peace officer. This disabling back injury, which occurred
while the officer was serving an eviction notice, was not
the first time relator had injured his back. Some of his
prior back injuries occurred before relator became a peace
officer, others occurred after he became a peace officer.
The first injury occurred in December 1989 while relator
was working as a civilian employee for Carver County. The
second injury occurred in April 2000 after relator had
become a peace officer, as he was getting into his squad
car. The third injury, which eventually caused relator to
end his career as a peace officer, occurred in December
2001 when relator slipped on icy stairs while serving an
eviction notice. In 2002, relator applied to the Public
Employee Retirement Association (PERA) for a duty —
related disability pension. PERA approved his application
and awarded him the pension. After relator retired from his
deputy — sheriff position in 2003, he began working
for Carver County as a civilian employee. In this capacity,
relator received, and continues to receive, employer
— provided health benefits, in addition to the duty
— related disability pension from PERA.

Relator also applied to the Public Safety Officers Benefit
Eligibility Panel (the panel) for a determination that he
was entitled to receive the continuation of health-insurance
benefits under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465
(Supp. 2005). After conducting a hearing, the panel agreed
that relator was injured in the line of duty. Nevertheless,
the panel unanimously voted to deny relator’s application
after determining that his occupational duties or
professional responsibilities did not put him at risk for
the type of injury that he sustained. The panel based its
decision on findings that (1) relator’s first injury
occurred while he was employed as a civilian employee, not
a law enforcement officer; (2) relator’s subsequent
injuries occurred while he was employed either as a law
enforcement officer or a civilian employee; and (3) relator
is receiving a duty-related disability pension
from PERA and is currently employed as a civilian employee
with Carver County and currently receiving health —
insurance benefits from Carver County. This certiorari
appeal follows.

ISSUE

Did the Public Safety Officers Benefit Eligibility Panel
err when it denied relator’s application for continued
employer — provided health — insurance
benefits by relying on factors that are not statutorily
authorized or directly relevant to whether relator’s
occupational duties or professional responsibilities put
him at risk for the type of injury that he sustained?

ANALYSIS

Judicial review presumes the correctness of an agency
decision. Gramke v. Cass County, 453 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn.
1990). Courts will reverse or modify an agency decision if
the agency’s findings and inferences are not supported by
substantial evidence or its decision is arbitrary and
capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e), (f) (2004);
Markwardt v. State, Water Res. Bd., 254 N.W.2d 371, 374
(Minn. 1977). An agency’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence if there is a “combination of danger
signals which suggest the agency has not taken a hard look
at the salient problems and the decision lacks articulated
standards and reflective findings.” Cable Commc’ns Bd. v.
Nor-West Cable Commc’ns P’ship, 356 N.W.2d 658, 668-69
(Minn. 1984) (quotations omitted). An agency acts
arbitrarily if it fails to articulate a rational connection
between facts found and the decision made. In re Excess
Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 624
N.W.2d 264, 277 (Minn. 2001). Appellate courts retain the
authority to review de novo “errors of law which arise when
an agency decision is based upon the meaning of words in a
statute.” In re Denial of Eller Media Co.’s Applications
for Outdoor Adver. Device Permits, 664 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Minn.
2003).

Section 299A.465, subdivision 1, states that a peace
officer’s employer will be required to provide continued
health–insurance coverage to the officer and the
officer’s dependents until the officer reaches the age of
65 when an officer

(a) suffers a disabling injury that: (1) results in the
officer’s retirement . . . or separation from service; (2)
occurs while the officer . . . is acting in the course and
scope of duties as a peace officer . . .; and (3) the
officer has been approved to receive the officer’s duty
— related disability pension.

Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, subd. 1(a)-(c) (2004). In
2005, the legislature amended section 299A.465, by adding
subdivision 6, which states that

[w]henever a peace officer . . . has been approved to
receive a duty-related disability pension, the
officer . . . may apply to the panel[fn1] . . . for a
determination of whether or not the officer . . . meets
the requirements in subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause
(2). In making this decision, the panel shall determine
whether or not the officer’s . . . occupational duties or
professional responsibilities put the officer . . . at
risk for the type of . . . injury actually sustained.

Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, subd. 6 (a) (Supp. 2005).

To determine if a statute has been properly applied, courts
focus on the words of the statute to “ascertain and
effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat.
§ 654.16 (2004); First Nat’l Bank of the N. v. Auto.
Fin. Corp., 661 N.W.2d 668, 670 (Minn.App. 2003). Where the
meaning of statutory language is plain and free of
ambiguity, “we apply that meaning as a manifestation of
legislative intent.” First Nat’l Bank, 661 N.W.2d at 670.
“Administrative interpretations are not entitled to
deference when they contravene plain statutory language, or
where there are compelling indications that the agency’s
interpretation is wrong.” J.C. Penney Co. v. Comm’r of
Econ. Sec., 353 N.W.2d 243, 246 (Minn.App. 1984) (citation
omitted). When statutory language is plain and unambiguous,
changes or additions can only be made by the legislature.
Id.

This court has never interpreted the relation between
subdivisions 1(a) and 6 of section 299A.465. But the plain
language of subdivisions 1(a) and 6 creates a two-part test
for determining whether a former peace officer is entitled
to continued employer provided health-insurance benefits.
First, the officer must be approved to receive a duty-related
disability pension. Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, subds. 1(a), 6
(Supp. 2005). If the officer satisfies this requirement, then
the panel must determine whether the disabling injury
occurred while the officer was acting within the course
and scope of his or her duties as a peace officer. Id.
In making this determination, the panel must decide whether
the officer’s occupational duties or professional responsibilities
put the officer at risk for the type of injury sustained. Minn.
Stat. § 299A.465, subd. 6.

Here, it is undisputed that PERA granted relator a
duty-related disability pension; the first prong of the
test is therefore satisfied. The more difficult
determination — and the crux of this appeal —
is whether the second prong was satisfied. Even though the
record reflects that the injury that forced relator to
retire occurred while he was acting within the course and
scope of his official duties, the panel concluded that the
second prong of the test was not satisfied because
relator’s occupational duties did not place him at risk for
the type of injury he sustained. The panel based its
decision on findings that (1) relator’s first injury
occurred while he was employed as a civilian, not a
law-enforcement officer; (2) relator’s subsequent injuries
occurred while he was employed either as a law-enforcement
officer or a civilian employee; and (3) Carver County was
providing relator health-insurance benefits in his
current capacity as a civilian employee. But the plain
language of the statute does not authorize consideration of
these factors; therefore, these factors do not support the
panel’s conclusions under section 299A.465.

1. First injury occurred while relator employed as a
civilian-preexisting condition

Section 299A.465 does not provide that a preexisting
condition is a factor relevant to whether an injury
occurred while an officer was acting within the course and
scope of his or her duties as a peace officer. Under
subdivision 6(a), the relevant inquiry is whether the
officer’s occupational duties or professional
responsibilities put the officer at risk for the type of
injury sustained. Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. But the
panel articulated no rationale for why — absent
statutory authorization — the facts of this case
warrant treating a preexisting condition as a relevant
factor for disqualification.

2. Relator’s subsequent injuries occurred while he was
employed either as a law-enforcement officer or as a
civilian employee.

Relator testified that a combination of his preexisting
condition and his current injury forced his retirement. But
this is irrelevant to the limited inquiry the panel must
make. Nowhere does the statute state that an officer’s
occupational duties or professional responsibilities do not
put an officer at risk for a disabling injury simply because
the injury aggravates a condition that arose prior to the
applicant becoming a peace officer. Moreover, we note that
relator had been successfully performing the duties of a
deputy sheriff for ten years prior to the December 2001
injury. Only after the December 2001 injury was relator
determined to be physically unfit to continue as a peace
officer.

3. Relator is employed as a civilian with Carver County and
receiving health-insurance benefits.

The statute is silent on the issue of whether an officer,
who in all other respects qualifies for continued
health-insurance benefits, is disqualified merely because
the officer is employed and currently receiving employer
— provided health-insurance benefits. The panel may not
usurp the legislature’s role and decide that,
as a matter of policy, a certain class of disabled officers
should be disqualified from benefits that the legislature
intended all officers to receive for the risks they incur
while guarding the peace and safety of the citizens of this
state. Such a determination is for the legislature alone.

By relying on factors that are not directly relevant to
whether relator’s occupational duties or professional
responsibilities put him at risk for the type of injury
sustained, the panel failed to determine whether relator
suffered an injury while acting in the course and scope of
his duties as a peace officer. Because the record clearly
shows that relator’s disabling injury occurred while he was
acting in the course and scope of his duties as a deputy
sheriff, the panel’s decision was arbitrary and capricious
and not supported by substantial evidence.

DECISION

The panel’s decision to deny relator’s application for
continued employer — provided health benefits was
arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial
evidence.

Reversed.

[fn1] The 2005 legislation also established the Public
Officer’s Benefit Eligibility Panel. Minn. Stat. §
299A.465, subds. 6, 7 (Supp. 2005). The role of the panel
is to determine whether the peace officer or firefighter
seeking continuation of health insurance benefits suffered
the disabling injury while acting in the course and scope of
his or her official duties. Minn. Stat. § 299A.465,
subd. 6. Subdivisions 6 and 7 of section 299A.465 expire on
July 1, 2008.