KENNETH HINKLE, Employee/Respondent, v. RUAN TRANSP., INC., and ACE INS. CO./HELMSMAN MGMT. SERVS., Employer-Insurer/Appellants.

The employer and insurer appeal the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s work injury was compensable under Minnesota workers’ compensation law. We affirm.

In 2008, Kenneth Hinkle, the employee, was hired in Georgia as an over-the-road truck driver by Ruan Transportation, Inc., the employer, after responding to an advertisement in a Georgia newspaper. He lived in Decatur, Georgia, had a commercial driver’s license from Georgia, and was assigned to an account with a home terminal in Georgia. In 2014, the employee was assigned to a different account with a home terminal in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, which was later moved to Otsego, Minnesota. There was another terminal for this account in Lake City, Georgia. The employee received his route assignments from his supervisor/dispatcher in Otsego. He would also attend mandatory training and safety meetings there. The employee rented Ryder trucks for his assignments from a facility near his home in Georgia. He picked up and delivered products in several states.

On October 28, 2014, the employee voluntarily resigned from his job with the employer. The resignation was done in order for the employee to make a withdrawal from a retirement account and with the understanding that the employee would be rehired by the employer after 30 days. The employee was rehired about 45 days later when he was flown by the employer to Otsego to complete the paperwork to be rehired. He attended a safety meeting there and picked up a load of products. From December 2014 through October 2015, the employee picked up or delivered products in 20 states. He picked up and delivered in Minnesota locations 19 times, more than any other state. He traveled through Minnesota about eight times per month and would also pick up paperwork and attend classes in Minnesota.

On October 27, 2015, the employee was injured when he was adjusting the load on his truck in Georgia. The employee reported his injury to the employer by telephone. The employer filed a first report of injury in Georgia which listed the employer’s address in Elk River, Minnesota. The employer and its workers’ compensation liability insurer accepted primary liability by filing a notice of insurer’s primary liability determination in Minnesota and initially paid temporary total disability benefits pursuant to Minnesota’s workers’ compensation law. In July 2016, the employer and insurer began paying benefits under Georgia’s workers’ compensation law.

On August 11, 2016, the employee filed a claim petition in Minnesota requesting benefits under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. After a hearing on April 13, 2017, the compensation judge found that the employee’s work injury was compensable under Minnesota workers’ compensation law. The employer and insurer appeal.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals must determine whether “the findings of fact and order [are] clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1(3). Substantial evidence supports the findings if, in the context of the entire record, “they are supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.” Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 59, 37 W.C.D. 235, 239 (Minn. 1984). Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed. Id. at 60, 37 W.C.D. at 240. Similarly, findings of fact should not be disturbed, even though the reviewing court might disagree with them, “unless they are clearly erroneous in the sense that they are manifestly contrary to the weight of evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975).

A decision which rests upon the application of a statute or rule to essentially undisputed facts generally involves a question of law which the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals may consider de novo. Krovchuk v. Koch Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993), summarily aff’d (Minn. June 3, 1993).

Determining whether the employee’s injury in Georgia is compensable under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act depends upon whether the circumstances of the employee’s employment and injury fall within the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 176.041. See Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., 486 N.W.2d 424, 427, 46 W.C.D. 721, 724 (Minn. 1992).

Extraterritorial application of Minnesota’s workers’ compensation law is allowed under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2, which provides:

The employer and insurer argue that the amount of time the employee spent and the amount of work performed in Minnesota are negligible compared to his overall employment activity. They assert that the employee lives in Georgia, parks his truck there, has his physicals and drug tests there, and was injured there. In addition, they argue that regularity implies majority and that the employee does not work “customarily, usually, or normally” in Minnesota. We disagree. This court has stated that the “statute does not require that more of the employee’s time be spent in Minnesota than elsewhere, only that the employee regularly perform ‘primary’ job duties in this state.” Gillund v. Royal/Milbank Ins. Co., 46 W.C.D. 520, 523 (W.C.C.A. 1992), summarily aff’d (Minn. Apr. 30, 1992) (regular travel to Minnesota for work activities conveyed jurisdiction); see also Dunker v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 75 W.C.D. 497, 501 (W.C.C.A. 2015) (where an employee worked about 35 percent of the time in Minnesota and earned 45 percent of her wages in Minnesota, Minnesota jurisdiction existed for a work injury which occurred in Wisconsin); Burgard v. Innworks, Inc., slip op. (W.C.C.A. May 6, 1996) (where the employee worked within Minnesota 168 out of the 514 days he worked for the employer, the employee regularly worked in Minnesota). Compare Letourneau v. Benson Elec., slip op. (W.C.C.A. June 16, 1998) (where the employer was not a Minnesota employer and the employee had last worked in Minnesota for the employer more than three months before his out-of-state injury and there was no indication at the time of injury that the employee would be working in Minnesota, there was no Minnesota jurisdiction); Torgerson v. L.H. Sowles, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Dec. 5, 1995) (where the employee was not hired in Minnesota and had never worked for the employer in Minnesota, there was no Minnesota jurisdiction for a work injury occurring outside of Minnesota).

In this case, the compensation judge noted that the employee’s home terminal is in Otsego, Minnesota, he received his routes from a dispatcher in Minnesota, he made 19 trips to and from Minnesota in the 10 months before his injury, and he picked up and delivered in Minnesota several times. Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee regularly performs the primary duties of his employment in Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2, is therefore applicable and Minnesota has jurisdiction.

An employee temporarily out of state may also be covered under Minnesota’s workers’ compensation law pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3, which provides:

Application of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3, requires hiring of an employee in Minnesota, by a Minnesota employer, and an injury which occurred while the employee was temporarily employed outside of Minnesota. The employer and insurer first assert that the employer is an Iowa employer, not a Minnesota employer, because its home office is located in Iowa. We disagree. The determination of whether an employer is a Minnesota employer under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3, is based on the nature and degree of its activities in this state, not the location of the employer’s home office or incorporation. See Rundberg v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, 51 W.C.D. 193, 201-02 (W.C.C.A. 1994), aff’d by order with mem., 51 W.C.D. 208 (Minn. Aug. 18, 1994). The employer has terminals located in Otsego and Elk River, Minnesota, and its employees perform services for hire in Minnesota. The employer is therefore a Minnesota employer for purposes of this statute.

The employer and insurer also claim that the employee was not hired in Minnesota because he was originally hired in Georgia in 2008 and the employee’s voluntary termination in 2014 was not intended to be permanent. They argue that because the parties intended for the employee to return to work for the employer, the employee was not terminated and therefore the completion of paperwork in Minnesota upon his return did not constitute the employee being “hired in this state.”

Whether an employer intended an employee’s termination from work to be permanent is a fact question. Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc., 897 N.W.2d 267, 275 (Minn. 2017) (affirming a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision which had reversed a district court’s summary judgment in a retaliation claim). In Sanchez, the supreme court noted that an employer’s promise to rehire a worker once he gained legal work status did not have mutual consideration and may not be binding. Id. at 274-75. Here, the compensation judge acknowledged that the employee’s supervisor had indicated the employee could return to work for the employer, but noted that the employment relationship had been terminated and that the employer was under no legal obligation to rehire the employee. In addition, the employee was flown to Minnesota to complete paperwork, which may not have been as extensive as it would be for a new hire, but was still required for the employee to return to work. The compensation judge could reasonably conclude that the employee had been hired in Minnesota in 2014.

The judge noted the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3, regarding temporary out-of-state employment did not fit employees who are always in temporary locations, citing Vaughn v. Nelson Bros. Constr., 520 N.W.2d 395, 51 W.C.D. 159 (Minn. 1994), where the supreme court indicated that an employee may have no permanent situs of employment and may be considered always in a temporary location. The supreme court also stated the quantity of time an employee spent in a single location was a factor in determining the situs of the employment relationship, but was not controlling. The court cited treatise language that transient or traveling employees whose employment relationships were created in a state do not lose that status as long as their employment remains transitory. Id. at 395, 51 W.C.D. at 161 (citing 4 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 87.41, at 16-114 (1994)). In this case, from December 2014 through October 2015, the employee picked up or delivered products in 20 states. He picked up and delivered in Minnesota locations 19 times, more than any other state. He traveled through Minnesota about eight times per month and would also pick up paperwork and attend classes in Minnesota. Based on these circumstances, the compensation judge concluded that after October 2014 and through the date of injury, the employee’s employment relationship remained centered in Minnesota. Substantial evidence supports this determination and the compensation judge’s finding that the employee met the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3.

The decision of the compensation judge is affirmed.