United States, usually remaining about three to four months at eachĮmployee lived in a motel or apartment for the duration of the job. Work, the employee typically worked about nine to ten months per year. Integrity Plus, a California corporation owned by Mr. From about 1988 or 1989 the employee worked for the employer, Repair work at military bases throughout the United States under short-termĬontracts for which they were the successful bidder. Not long afterwards, the employee began working for a succession ofĬompanies owned variously by Edward Dickson or his wife. About 1980 or 1981 the employee was hired byĪ company engaged in concrete work repairing runways and taxiways at the U.S. Job in which he learned to operate heavy construction equipment. In 1979 the employee moved to Mississippi, where he obtained a Spaghetti, cutting and boxing meat, driving a truck to deliver frozen meat,ĭriving a cab, cleaning and preparing rental cars, and driving a rental carĬompany =s shuttle bus. Where he held various jobs, including working in restaurants making pizza and In about 1961 the employee moved to Chicago, Harvesting fruit, but later completed the ninth grade. School after the seventh grade to work for a few years as a migrant laborer The employee, Willie Smith, was born in Tennessee on Jand Finally, the cross-appellant insurer appealsįrom the language of Order 2 insofar as it includes the insurer in its orderįor the payment of permanent total disability benefits. Parties a stipulation that any Minnesota benefits awarded would be subject to aĬredit for benefits already paid under California law. Insurance contract between the employer and insurer, alleges that theĬompensation judge failed to include in her recital of the stipulations of the Insurer appeals from the judge =s factual finding concerning certain language contained in the To claim coverage from the insurer for Minnesota workers = compensation benefits. The cross-appellant employer and the appellant employee appealįrom the compensation judge =s determination that she lacked jurisdiction to determine whether theĬontract of insurance between the employer and insurer permitted the employer Totally disabled and from the judge =s recital of the stipulation of the parties as to whether and in whatĪmount overtime earnings were includable in the calculation of the employee =s weekly wage. TheĮmployer further appeals from the finding that the employee was permanently and The employer also appeals from the compensation judge =s determination that federal law does notĬlaim for Minnesota workers = compensation benefits. Workers = compensation benefits under Minn. The cross-appellant employer and the cross-appellant insurer bothĪppeal from the compensation judge =s determination that the employee was entitled to claim Minnesota Jurisdiction of a Minnesota workers = compensation tribunal is limited to questions arising under theīy Pederson, J., Rykken, J., and Wheeler, C.J. Rights the contract of insurance affords the parties inter se as the Judge did not err in concluding she lacked jurisdiction to determine what other The compensation judge erred in including the insurer in her order for the Where Minnesota coverage is not provided, 2 to reform the contractīetween the employer and the insurer to cover Minnesota workers = compensation benefits. Liability to pay compensation under the Minnesota workers =s compensation act, there is no basis under Language of the contract of insurance that the contract was not one which Opinion, and expert vocational testimony, supported the compensation judge =s finding that the employee was permanently Substantial evidence, including lay testimony, medical evidence and Judge did not err in concluding that jurisdiction was present in Minnesota His filing of a Minnesota claim petition constituted an affirmativeĮlection to forego California benefits under Stolpa v. To initiate and cooperate with the voluntary payment of benefits by theĬalifornia insurer, the employee never instituted any claim for Californiaīenefits in a California workers = compensation agency or tribunal. Although the employee did take some affirmative steps ' 290 for those employees working for the State of Minnesota, the federal government, through the contracting federalĪgency, did not affirmatively elect to withdraw the grant of state workers = compensation jurisdiction made to Minnesota Requirement that the employer maintain workers = compensation insurance for work performed on federal land within the In accepting the employer =s proof of California workers = compensation coverage as complying with the INTEGRITY PLUS, INC., Employer/Cross-Appellant,Īnd CALIFORNIA STATE COMPENSATION INS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |