 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reede v. State12/20/2000
6, 919 (SD 1991) (emphasis added).
[ ] The Department specifically found that Reede's move was not to withdraw herself from the workforce, or to aid in obtaining workers' compensation benefits, but instead a good faith move based on financial necessity. We are asked to determine whether Reede's change of residence under these circumstances created and improperly imposed a new community for determining employability to the detriment of the employer.
[ ] The Minnesota Supreme Court in Kurrell v. National Con Rod, Inc., determined that an injured employee may relocate and still be entitled to receive benefits. 322 NW2d 199, 202 (MN 1982). However, the employee must demonstrate that they "made a diligent search" for other employment in the new area. Id. The injured employee's motivation cannot be to "impede the return to gainful employment" or constitute "a plan to retire from the labor market." Id. In recognizing the right to maintain these benefits, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated:
Indeed, [claimant's] motivations in moving ... may be viewed as "merely personal," but the relevant inquiry is whether her actions were antithetical to the purposes of the statute. It would be a harsh and rigid rule that allowed an employee to better her personal situation only at the expense of her statutory right. Id.
[ ] The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized limits to this relocation policy in Paine v. Beek's Pizza, 323 NW2d 812 (MN 1982). The Paine court embraced the Kurell rationale but found that the claimant did not satisfy the requirements of the rule. Paine, 323 NW2d at 815. A claimant "who, at the time of injury and for a considerable time before, had lived in the metropolitan area, but after the injury voluntarily removed himself from that job market to an area of low employment opportunity" was precluded from receiving workers' compensation benefits. Id. The court recognized that " he employee, of course, has the right to choose where to live. It does not follow, however, that if an employee chooses to live in an area where employment opportunities for him are virtually non-existent, an employer-insurer must subsidize him." Id. By choosing to withdraw from the labor market the injured employee was found to have surrendered his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits. Id. at 816.
[ ] Based on the findings of the Department, we cannot say that Reede surrendered her benefits by relocating to Forsyth. The Department's determinations that Reede's move to Forsyth was not a withdrawal from the labor market but was a good faith move is not clearly erroneous in light of the entire record. However, the key is what is lacking in the Department's findings. The Department altogether failed to address the reasonableness of Reede's search for employment in her other "community," the Black Hills, yet awarded benefits for the period she resided there. To limit potential abuse, before addressing the employability of Reede in the new community of Forsyth/Rosebud, Montana, the Department must consider her employability in the community where she lived, worked and was injured.
[ ] To establish a prima facie case that Reede is totally disabled based on her "physical condition, in combination with her age, training, and experience, and the type of work available in the community, [which] caused to be unable to secure anything more than sporadic employment resulting in insubstantial income" she must initially meet this requirement in the community in which she resided when injured to recover for that period. Baker, 529 NW2d at 585. To hold otherwise would allow injured employees who move, even for good faith reasons, to collect benefits they would not otherwise be en
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|