Opinion
A19-1058
02-07-2020
John DEVOS, Relator, v. RHINO CONTRACTING, INC., Self-Insured, Respondent, and Riverview Health, Blue Cross Blue Shield MN/Blue Plus, and Altru Health System, Intervenors, and Special Compensation Fund, Respondent.
Mark L. Rodgers, Kristen M. Rodgers, James H. Perkett, Rodgers Law Office, P.L.L.C., Bemidji, Minnesota, for relator. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Kelly S. Kemp, Rory H. Foley, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent Special Compensation Fund.
Mark L. Rodgers, Kristen M. Rodgers, James H. Perkett, Rodgers Law Office, P.L.L.C., Bemidji, Minnesota, for relator.
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Kelly S. Kemp, Rory H. Foley, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent Special Compensation Fund.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
ORDER
David L. Lillehaug, Associate Justice
This case is before us on the appeal of relator John Devos from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA), which affirmed the dismissal of his claim petition. The WCCA concluded that relator’s exclusive remedy for workers’ compensation benefits is under the workers’ compensation system in North Dakota. Relator raises statutory issues and a constitutional issue not decided below: whether the limitation of Minnesota workers’ compensation benefits in Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 5b (2018), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Section 2.
Turning first to the constitutional issue, on such a claim we use a form of rational-basis review. See Schuette v. City of Hutchinson , 843 N.W.2d 233, 239 (Minn. 2014) ; Gluba ex rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry , 735 N.W.2d 713, 721 (Minn. 2007). We presume that a workers’ compensation statute is constitutional, and relator "bears the burden of proof on his constitutional claim." Gluba , 735 N.W.2d at 719, 726. After carefully considering the arguments of the parties, we conclude that relator has not carried his burden to demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional.
Turning next to the statutory issues, relator contends that he was not "an employee hired in North Dakota" and that his injury did not arise out of "temporary work in Minnesota" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 5b. After carefully considering the arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the WCCA on the statutory issues.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed June 12, 2019, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton , 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn. 1982) (stating that summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other claims and requests for relief are denied.