The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s determination that the self-insured employer is entitled to an offset against the employee’s permanent total disability compensation in the amount of her Social Security retirement benefit.  We affirm.

On March 27, 1990, Agnes N. Grubessich, the employee, sustained an admitted Gillette^[1] injury to her low back while working for Allina Health System, doing business as Unity Hospital, the employer, which was self-insured for workers’ compensation liability.  The employer paid various workers’ compensation benefits and the employee returned to work for the employer.  In January 1994, the employee reached 65 years of age and began receiving Social Security retirement benefits.  The employee continued to work part time for the employer.  On December 5, 2005, the employee sustained a work-related left shoulder injury while working for the employer.  The employer again accepted liability and paid various workers’ compensation benefits.

In August 2008, the employee was laid off by the employer due to lack of work.  Since the lay off, the employer has been paying permanent total disability benefits.  The parties stipulated that both work injuries are substantial contributing factors to the employee’s permanent total disability.  As of approximately August 1, 2009, the employer had paid $25,000.00 in permanent total disability benefits.  After that date, the employer reduced the employee’s permanent total disability benefits by the amount of her Social Security benefits, citing Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, as the basis for the offset.

On August 25, 2010, the employee filed a claim petition for an underpayment of permanent total disability benefits, arguing that the employer was not entitled to take an offset of her permanent total disability benefits.  A hearing was held on April 20, 2011.  At the time of the hearing, the employee was 82 years old.  The compensation judge found that the employer was entitled to take an offset of the employee’s permanent total disability benefits pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, and denied the employee’s claim petition.  The employee appeals.

The facts in this case are not in dispute.  The basis for the employee’s appeal is a question of law, the interpretation of the language and structure of Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, which the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals may consider de novo.  Krovchuk v. Koch Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D 607 (W.C.C.A 1993), summarily aff’d (Minn. June 3, 1993).

The issue on appeal is whether the self-insured employer is entitled to reduce the employee’s permanent total disability benefits, after $25,000.00 has been paid, by the amount of Social Security retirement benefits under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, when the receipt of the retirement benefits began prior to the permanent total disability benefits and the retirement benefits are not related to a work injury.  Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, allows an offset and therefore a reduction of permanent total disability benefits to an employee who concurrently receives additional benefits specified in the statute.  Specifically, Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, provides that

The employee contends there is ambiguity in the language and structure of Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, that reasonably allows for more than one interpretation.  The employee argues that the contingency requirement in subdivision 4, which restricts the offset to a reduction of permanent total disability benefits only if Social Security disability benefits are being paid because of the exact same injuries which necessitated the permanent total disability benefits,^[2] also applies to old age benefits.  The employee further contends the correct interpretation requires a causal connection between the work-related injuries, the payment of permanent total benefits and the receipt of old age benefits, and that the causal connection is not present in this case.  Therefore, the employee argues, the statute does not permit a reduction in her permanent total disability benefits since the Social Security retirement benefits were not occasioned by the same injuries which gave rise to the payment of permanent total disability benefits.  To that end, the employee argues this interpretation should be applied to reverse the compensation judge’s denial of her claim for an underpayment of permanent total disability benefits.

The self-insured employer contends the meaning of the statute is clear and supports only one conclusion: the legislature intended for the offset to apply to Social Security retirement benefits regardless of when those benefits commenced.  The employer argues that the clause pertaining to old age and survivor benefits as written does not relate to the limitation in the preceding sentence and that there is no ambiguity in the statute that reasonably allows for two interpretations.  The employer claims that the employee’s argument would require this court to either add terms to the statute that the legislature omitted or ignore the fact that the legislature could simply have left off the last clause and written the statute to say:

Minn. Stat. § 176.11, subd. 4 (1949) (repealed in 1953), the previous version of Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4, did not mention old age or survivors benefits.  The offset was added in 1953, when Minn. Stat. § 176.101 was enacted and included the following in subdivision 4:

This court previously addressed the same issues presented in this case in Adamski v. Kenneth Setterholm’s Farm,^[9] and held that an employer and insurer are entitled to an offset from permanent total disability benefits for Social Security retirement benefits received by the employee, regardless of whether the employee qualified for and was receiving Social Security retirement benefits prior to the date of injury.  The court stated that an offset of old age benefits does not require that the eligibility for old age benefits be occasioned by the same work injury or injuries which resulted in the eligibility for permanent total disability benefits, and noted that the statute makes no distinction between employees who become permanently totally disabled before qualifying for Social Security retirement benefits from those who become permanently totally disabled after qualifying for Social Security retirement benefits.^[10]  The fact that the legislature has not changed the statute in the years since this and other cases cited in Adamski is indicative of legislative intent.

Following this court’s previous decision, we conclude the statute allows the insurer to take the reduction of Social Security retirement benefits without consideration of the commencement date and without a causal connection to the work injury.  The offset is considered a dollar-for-dollar reduction for benefits in the month it was received and is not based on the date of commencement or whether it is occasioned by the same injury.^[11]  The compensation judge’s interpretation is consistent with Minnesota case law.^[12]  We, therefore, affirm.