Gary Ekdahl, Relator v. Independent School District 213, Self-Insured/Riverport Insurance Services , 2014 Minn. LEXIS 365 ( 2014 )

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A14-0089
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals Page, J.
Gary Ekdahl,
Relator,
vs. Filed: August 13, 2014
Office of Appellate Courts
Independent School District #213,
Self-Insured/Riverport Insurance Services,
Respondent.
________________________
DeAnna M. McCashin, Schoep & McCashin, Chtd., Alexandria, Minnesota, for relator.
Timothy P. Jung, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
respondent.
Charlene K. Feenstra, Joshua M. Steinbrecher, Heacox, Hartman, Koshmrl, Cosgriff &
Johnson, P.A., Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Workers’ Compensation
Reinsurance Association.
Thomas J. Grundhoefer, Edward S. Cadman, MSBA Legislative Counsel, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota School Boards Association.
________________________
SYLLABUS
The phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits,” as used in Minn. Stat.
§ 176.101, subd. 4 (2012), refers to social security benefits under the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 (2012).
1
Reversed.
OPINION
PAGE, Justice.
Relator Gary Ekdahl, who was injured while working for respondent Independent
School District #213 (the School District), sought and was awarded permanent total
disability benefits. The School District, relying on Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2012),
requested an offset of its disability-benefit payment by the amount of government-service
pension benefits Ekdahl was receiving, arguing that the statute authorizes an offset for
“any old age and survivor insurance benefits.” The compensation judge denied the
requested offset, concluding that Ekdahl’s government-service pension benefits are not
“old age and survivor insurance benefits,” as that phrase is used in Minn. Stat. § 176.101,
subd. 4. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, concluding
that government-service pension benefits are included in the phrase “old age and survivor
insurance benefits,” and thus can be offset from the School District’s disability-benefit
payment. Ekdahl raises two issues in this appeal: (1) whether the phrase “old age and
survivor insurance benefits,” as used in Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, includes pension
benefits received by a former government employee; and (2) if so, whether his equal
protection and due process rights are violated by the statutory offset. For the reasons
explained below, we reverse the WCCA and reinstate the decision of the compensation
judge.
Gary Ekdahl was employed by the School District as an industrial arts teacher and
volleyball coach. On September 9, 2004, Ekdahl injured his back at work. Ekdahl
2
retired from his teaching position with the School District in 2006 due to his injuries. He
discontinued his coaching duties on November 15, 2011, and has not held any gainful
employment since that date.
Ekdahl has not applied for or received any benefits under the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 (2012). In 2006, he applied for and was awarded a retirement
pension from the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA). See Minn. Stat. § 354.44,
subd. 1 (2012) (“Any [TRA] member . . . who ceases . . . to render teaching services . . .
is entitled upon written application to a retirement annuity.”). Ekdahl has not applied for
or received any TRA disability benefits. See Minn. Stat. § 354.48 (2012). Ekdahl
eventually sought and was awarded permanent total disability benefits under the Workers
Compensation Act (Act). See Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4. Relying on Minn. Stat.
§ 176.101, subd. 4, the School District sought to offset its permanent total disability
benefit payment by the amount of Ekdahl’s TRA retirement pension. The compensation
judge rejected the School District’s claim, concluding that the School District was not
entitled to the offset.
The School District appealed, and the WCCA reversed the decision of the
compensation judge, holding that “after a total of $25,000 in weekly compensation has
been paid, the [School District] is entitled to reduce [Ekdahl’s] permanent total disability
benefits by the amount of [TRA] retirement benefits.” Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. #213,
2013 WL 7017760, at *6 (Minn. WCCA Dec. 24, 2013). Ekdahl then petitioned this
court for review by certiorari.
3
Minnesota Statutes § 176.101, subd. 4, provides, in relevant part:
This compensation shall be paid during the permanent total disability of the
injured employee but after a total of $25,000 of weekly compensation has
been paid, the amount of the weekly compensation benefits being paid by
the employer shall be reduced by the amount of any disability benefits
being paid by any government disability benefit program if the disability
benefits are occasioned by the same injury or injuries which give rise to
payments under this subdivision. This reduction shall also apply to any old
age and survivor insurance benefits.
(Emphasis added.) This section provides generally that after $25,000 of permanent total
benefits have been paid, an employee’s permanent total disability benefits are reduced by
the amount of any benefits received from any government disability program.
Subdivision 4 further provides that “[t]his reduction shall also apply to any old age and
survivor insurance benefits.” The statute does not, however, define the phrase “old age
and survivor insurance benefits.”
Ekdahl argues that the only retirement-benefit offset from permanent total
disability benefits that is authorized by the phrase “any old age and survivor insurance
benefits” in section 176.101, subdivision 4, is for federal social security benefits under
the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34. The School District argues that the
phrase “any old age and survivor insurance benefits” includes all government-service
pension benefits, not simply federal social security benefits. The School District further
argues that the Legislature’s use of the word “any” before the phrase “old age and
survivor insurance benefits” indicates that the offset is to be applied broadly. As a result,
the School District contends that permanent total disability benefits may be offset by any
government-service pension benefit, not just social security benefits.
4
The facts of this case are undisputed. Thus, resolution of the case turns on a
question of law: the interpretation of the phrase “old age and survivor insurance
benefits,” as used in section 176.101, subdivision 4. When interpreting statutory
provisions, we apply a de novo standard of review. Reider v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist.
No. 11, 728 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Minn. 2007). We are not bound by WCCA decisions that
rest upon the application of a statute to undisputed facts. Bradley v. Vic’s Welding, 405
N.W.2d 243, 245 (Minn. 1987). The goal of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and
effectuate the intention of the Legislature. Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d
273, 278 (Minn. 2000). When reading a statute, we interpret words and phrases
“according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage,” but
we interpret “technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a special
meaning . . . according to such special meaning.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2012).
The offset provision has been part of the Minnesota workers’ compensation
regime since 1953. See Act of Apr. 24, 1953, ch. 755, § 10, 1953 Minn. Laws 1099,
1113-14 (“This compensation shall be paid during the permanent total disability of the
injured person but if the employe[e] is eligible for old age and survivors insurance
benefits, such benefits shall be credited on the compensation benefits payable under this
subdivision after a total of $18,000 has been paid.” (codified as amended at Minn. Stat.
§ 176.101, subd. 4 (2012))). The parties agree that, as enacted in 1953, the phrase “old
age and survivors insurance benefits” referred only to social security benefits under the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34. That reading of the phrase is consistent with
5
the technical meaning of the phrase. For example, Black’s Law Dictionary defines the
phrase “old-age and survivors’ insurance” as:
A system of insurance, subsidized by the federal government, that provides
retirement benefits for persons who reach retirement age and payments to
survivors upon the death of the insured.
This was the original name for the retirement and death benefits established
by the Social Security Act of 1935. As the scope of these benefits
expanded, the name changed to Old Age, Survivors, and Disability
Insurance (OASDI), and then to Old Age, Survivors, Disability, and Health
Insurance (OASDHI). Today, the system is most often referred to as Social
Security.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1260 (10th ed. 2014).
Moreover, since its enactment, we have consistently construed the offset provision
to refer to federal social security benefits. In Telle v. Northfield Iron Co., we allowed an
offset for federal social security retirement benefits, but not disability benefits. 278
Minn. 129, 132, 153 N.W.2d 270, 272 (1967) (holding that offset for social security
retirement benefits does not include federal disability benefits, and stating that there was
no “legislative intent to embody the entire subchapter of the Social Security Act dealing
with both disability benefits and old age benefits”). Since Telle, apart from increasing the
minimum compensation amount and adding “any” to the authorized social security offset,
the Legislature has neither amended nor altered the phrase “old age and survivor
insurance benefits.” See Act of June 2, 1967, ch. 40, § 9, subd. 4, 1967 Minn. Laws
2225, 2234-35 (increasing the compensation to $25,000 and adding “any” before the
phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits”). The meaning of the offset provision,
with respect to retirement benefits, therefore continues to refer only to federal social
6
security retirement benefits. See, e.g., Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 n.11 (Minn.
2010) (“[W]hen the legislature uses a phrase we assume . . . the legislature intended to
use the phrase according to its commonly understood meaning.”).
The School District argues, however, that when the Legislature added the word
“any” before the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits,” it broadened the
meaning of the offset provision to include all government-service pension benefits. We
disagree. The word “any” is defined as “[o]ne, some, every, or all without specification.”
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 81 (5th ed. 2011). Thus, the
use of the word “any” in front of a plural countable noun refers to all things of a
particular type; in this case, all social security benefits. In other words, the Legislature’s
insertion of “any” before the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits” did not
alter the meaning of that phrase; it merely expanded the scope of the federal social
security benefits to which the offset is to be applied.1
This conclusion is consistent with our decision in Potucek v. City of Warren, 535
N.W.2d 333 (Minn. 1995). Although Potucek addressed an offset for disability, rather
than retirement, benefits we explained that coordinating workers’ compensation benefits
with “the federal social security system and the state pension system” depends on the
“different considerations” of those systems, and “offsets aimed at preventing duplicate
1
Over the years, the number of programs covered by the Social Security Act has
expanded. Those programs include social security disability insurance, supplemental
security income, social security retirement benefits, and social security dependent
benefits. By our decision today, we do not purport to decide which of these programs are
subject to the offset provisions in section 176.101, subdivision 4.
7
benefits must be read with the basic purpose of each system in mind.” Id. at 336(footnote omitted). We said, “ ‘[I]n the absence of [an] express statutory election or
offset provision[], . . . the benefits of both a public pension law and a compensation act
can be simultaneously drawn.’ ” Id. (quoting 4 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s
Compensation, § 97.41(c) (1995)).
It is undisputed that Ekdahl does not receive any disability benefits from TRA.
Further, the only retirement benefit he receives is from TRA; he does not receive a social
security retirement benefit. The plain language of the offset provision does not
encompass Ekdahl’s TRA retirement annuity.
Because we conclude that the phrase “old age and survivor insurance benefits”
unambiguously refers only to federal social security benefits, the WCCA erred when it
applied the offset in Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, to Ekdahl’s TRA retirement annuity.
Therefore, we reverse the WCCA and reinstate the decision of the compensation judge.2
Reversed.
2
Because we hold that the offset provision of Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, does
not apply to Ekdahl’s TRA retirement annuity, we need not and therefore do not address
Ekdahl’s constitutional claim.
8