Minnesota workers’ compensation would set disability payments and claim rules

Workers’ compensation would use a disability payment table and accept post-traumatic stress disorder diagnoses from specified mental health professionals. The table would cover permanent partial disability, meaning lasting impairment. The diagnosis rule would apply to workers’ compensation claims. Payments would equal the worker’s whole-body impairment percentage multiplied by the table amount for that rating. Table amounts range from $137,240 to $682,045. Post-traumatic stress disorder would require a diagnosis from a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner. A diagnosis alone would not guarantee benefits. Mental harm caused by an employer’s good-faith personnel decisions, such as discipline or termination, would be excluded. Both provisions would apply to injury dates on or after October 1, 2026, if enacted.

Workers’ lawyers would provide fee notices, and workers could request a personal physician or unpaid witness at an employer-requested medical exam. These rules would cover workers hiring lawyers for compensation claims or attending medical exams requested by their employers. The notice would state a fee limit of 20 percent of the first $275,000 awarded, with a $55,000 total limit for fees related to the same injury. No fee under this section could be awarded without a signed agreement. Each side would pay its own physician or witness costs. Both rules would take effect the day following final enactment. The fee notice would apply to injury dates on or after October 1, 2024.

Employers or insurers could stop payments they had started by filing a denial notice within 90 days of learning of the injury. The rule would cover employers and insurers that have already started workers’ compensation payments. The employer or insurer would have to determine within that period that the disability did not result from a work injury. The denial notice would have to explain the facts and specific reasons for denying the claim. After 90 days, stopping payments would require the separate notice process referenced in section 176.239. The rule would apply to injury dates on or after October 1, 2026, if enacted.

The Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association would follow rules for sharing extra money with employers and collecting money to cover shortfalls. Distributions and shortfall charges would cover self-insured employers and insured employers, including employers covered by the assigned risk plan. Sharing extra money would require a board decision, approval by the labor and industry commissioner, and review by the commerce commissioner, who could amend, approve, or reject the order. If a distribution left too little money to pay claims from the period used to calculate it, the commerce commissioner would order charges to cover the shortfall, considering employer hardship. Distributions and shortfall charges would apply only going forward. Rates and the amounts used to calculate payments would be recalculated each policy year for multiyear distributions or charges. Unpaid premiums and other amounts owed would become due when an insurer or self-insured employer leaves the association. An insolvent member’s unpaid net debt would follow the operating plan in effect when a regulator or court first declared insolvency. These finance rules would take effect the day following final enactment.

Workers’ compensation appeals could use an active compensation judge, and cases with agreed facts could be decided without a hearing. These procedures would cover Minnesota workers’ compensation appeals and disputes in which the parties agree on the facts. The appeals court’s chief judge could assign an active compensation judge only when too few appeals judges were available and retired judges could not fill the gap. The chief judge of the Court of Administrative Hearings would have to consent. The commissioner or a compensation judge could decide a case without a hearing only when the parties agreed on the facts and only legal questions remained. The decision could be appealed. Both procedures would take effect the day following final enactment. Decisions on agreed facts would be due within 60 days of receiving those facts.