Minnesota: Injured Worker Could Pursue Relief Under Both State Workers’ Comp Act and the Longshore Act

The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that although the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act includes a provision on election of remedies for employees who work primarily outside the state, but are injured in Minnesota [Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 4 (2016)], which generally provides that the injury will be covered by the Minnesota Act only if the employee does not pursue workers’ compensation claims in another state, such limiting language did not extend to an additional claim filed pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act [33 U.S.C.S. § 901–950]. Accordingly, the compensation judge was in error to dismiss the worker’s claim on the theory of forum non conveniens. The Court indicated the state and federal remedies were complementary—not mutually exclusive. Since the compensation court had concurrent jurisdiction to hear the dispute, it should not have dismissed the claim.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Ansello v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd., 2017 Minn. LEXIS 487 (Aug. 9, 2017)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 145.07.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law