JURISDICTION – SUBJECT MATTER. The compensation judge properly dismissed the employee’s claim petition where the employer named in the claim petition was not the employer of the employee and any claim deriving from a memorandum of understanding between the actual employer and the alleged employer is barred due to the sovereign immunity of the employer.
Compensation Judge: Danny P. Kelly
Attorneys: John P. Bailey, Bailey Law Office, Ltd., Bemidji, Minnesota, for the Appellant. James S. Pikala, Christine L. Tuft, Emily A. LaCourse, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondents.
Affirmed.
DAVID A. STOFFERAHN, Judge
The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s order dismissing the claim petition.[1] We affirm.
Rebecca May, the employee, was employed by Leech Lake Behavioral Health Services Program, Human Services Division, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (“Band”) on September 29, 2015. The Band had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Cass Lake/Bena Schools, Independent School District 115 (“the District”) in which the Behavioral Health Services Program was to provide “children’s therapeutic support and services and mental health therapy” for the 2015-2016 school year. Ms. May alleged that she sustained a work-related injury in the nature of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) on September 28, 2015. The Band was self-insured for workers’ compensation with claims administered by Berkley Risk Services. Ms. May was notified on October 5, 2015, by a claim representative at Berkley Risk Services that her claim was denied because “injury arising from an emotional and/or mental condition, component or dysfunction” was not covered by the Band’s insurance policy. Ms. May was also advised she could appeal the denial within 30 days.[2]
On behalf of the employee, a claim petition was filed on May 26, 2017, naming the District as the employer and Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company as the insurer, and claiming various workers’ compensation benefits. The District filed a motion to dismiss the claim petition on the grounds that Ms. May was not an employee of the District but was an employee of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and was covered by their workers’ compensation policy on the date of injury.
The employee objected to the motion. She argued that the agreement between the Band and the District required that the Band provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The fact that the Band’s insurance policy did not cover PTSD claims when such claims were covered by carriers subject to Minnesota workers’ compensation law under Minn. Stat. Ch. 176, meant that the Band was uninsured.[3] She also argued that the Band was a subcontractor of the District and that because the Band was uninsured, the District, as a general contractor was liable for benefits under Minn. Stat. § 176.215.
The employee acknowledged that the Band was a sovereign entity not subject to the laws of Minnesota, including the workers’ compensation statutes, but she contended that the Band had waived its sovereignty by entering into the Memorandum of Understanding with the District. Finally, the employee argued that these contentions were factual questions not suitable for consideration on a motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss was heard at a special term conference by a compensation judge on October 16, 2017. Counsel for the parties appeared by telephone and argued their positions. In an order dated November 15, 2017, the compensation judge granted the District’s motion and dismissed the claim petition. The employee has appealed that decision to this court.
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).
The District maintains that it was not Ms. May’s employer on the date of injury and because liability for a work injury rests with the employer of the injured employee under Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 1, it is not responsible for any compensation to which she might be entitled. Accordingly, the compensation judge properly dismissed the employee’s claim petition. In response, the employee states that she does not claim she was an employee of the District, but alleges she was an employee of an uninsured subcontractor, the Band, and that, as a general contractor, the District is responsible for her injury pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.215.
Minn. Stat. § 176.215 provides that a general or intermediate contractor is responsible for paying workers’ compensation benefits to the injured employee of an uninsured subcontractor. For Minn. Stat. § 176.215 to apply to this case, there must be determinations of whether the District is a contractor within the contemplation of the statute, whether the Band was required to cover injuries such as PTSD in its workers’ compensation plan, whether the Band is uninsured because it did not do so, and whether the Band is liable to the school district in a subrogation claim. These determinations require application of Minnesota statutes and case law, however, such an application of Minnesota law would impinge on the sovereignty of the Band. As a sovereign entity, the Band is not subject to Minnesota jurisdiction. Tibbets v. Leech Lake Reservation Business Comm., 397 N.W.2d 883, 39 W.C.D. 238 (Minn. 1986).
The employee argues that the Band waived its immunity by entering into an agreement with the District. The employee cites no basis for this argument and we are not persuaded. The employee also argues that the order dismissing her claim petition was premature because there are factual determinations to be made which require an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. The sovereign status of the Band and its immunity from workers’ compensation claims, asserted under Minnesota workers’ compensation law, whether brought directly by the employee or by a party under Minn. Stat. § 176.215, is a question of law.
The order of the compensation judge is affirmed.
[1] We follow the parties’ lead in referring to employee and employer. The relationship between the parties is at issue in this appeal.
[2] Counsel for the employee stated at oral argument before this court that the employee had not appealed the denial.
[3] Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 15 was amended to include coverage for PTSD in some instances for injuries after October 1, 2013.