JASON H. AMBORN, Employee/Petitioner, v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, Self-Insured Employer/Respondent, and HEALTHPARTNERS, Intervenor.

The employee petitions this court to vacate an award on stipulation arising from claimed work injuries in 2004 and 2008. Because the employee has failed to show cause to vacate the award, we deny the petition.

Jason H. Amborn, the employee, was a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician (EMT) for the City of Maplewood, the self-insured employer. The employee was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and a low testosterone condition and claimed that exposure to toxic substances while responding to fire calls and medical emergencies was the cause of both conditions. The employee alleged injury dates of August 1, 2004, for the thyroid cancer and September 20, 2008, for the low testosterone condition, and sought workers’ compensation benefits for those injuries. On October 1, 2010, the employee resigned from his positions with the City of Maplewood, contending that he was unable to continue that employment due to his work injuries.

On January 23, 2015, an award on stipulation was served and filed that approved the agreement between the parties settling, on a full, final, and complete basis, all of the employee’s workers’ compensation claims arising out of the August 1, 2004, and September 20, 2008, work injuries. The self-insured employer paid $88,000.00 to the employee in a lump sum. This total was arrived at by assessing the weekly indemnity benefit for lost wages over the employee’s remaining life expectancy. The self-insured employer maintained a primary denial of liability for both claimed work injuries. The stipulation makes no mention of the employee’s anticipated benefits from the Fire Relief Association.

On October 25, 2016, the employee applied for disability retirement benefits from the Fire Relief Association. In October 2016, Karen Warren, M.D., and Christopher T. Kodl, M.D., issued treatment opinions that the employee had been disabled from working as a firefighter due to thyroid cancer since 2010 and the condition was work-related. The employee was paid disability retirement benefits by the Fire Relief Association totaling $47,823.73. This is approximately 60 percent of the amount the employee believed that he was owed ($79,039.56). In November 2017, the employee sought redress for this perceived underpayment through the Office of the State Auditor, Pension Division.^[1]

In 2018, the City of Maplewood transitioned from a part-time volunteer fire department to a full-time department. Some, but not all, of the current part-time firefighters were hired into full-time jobs with the department. A dispute arose over the disposition of contributions paid by the part-time firefighters into the Fire Relief Association pension fund. The dispute was resolved by a settlement in which those firefighters not hired on for full-time work would receive $11,000.00 per year of service. As the employee was not employed by the City of Maplewood at the time of the settlement, the employee was not included in the payout of accrued pension funds.

On November 16, 2018, the employee filed a petition to vacate the award on stipulation served and filed January 23, 2015.

This court is authorized to set aside an award on stipulation “for cause” by Minn. Stat. § 176.461. Under that statute, cause includes a mutual mistake of fact. The employee contends that there were two mutual mistakes of fact made by the parties at the time of settlement. The first asserted mistake is that the parties were unaware of the changes that would take place to the City of Maplewood’s fire department, and through that, the different position that the employee would have regarding the eventual payout of pension funds. The second mistake claimed is that the parties assumed a 100 percent vesting of the employee’s disability retirement payout, when he received only a 60 percent payout, resulting in an undervaluation of the employee’s claim for benefits. The self-insured employer maintains that there was no mutual mistake of fact that would support vacating the award on stipulation.

This court has examined the employee’s claim regarding the organizational changes in 2018 to the City of Maplewood’s fire department and its pension plan. We conclude that these changes cannot constitute a mutual mistake of within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 176.461. As described by the employee, the pension payouts in 2018 were made to firefighters who were currently employed in the part-time fire department and not kept on as full-time employees. Due to the employee’s work disability and subsequent discharge from employment in 2010, the employee was not eligible for that pension payout. These events occurred eight years after the employee was unable to continue working due to the claimed work injuries. At the time of the stipulation, there was no fact about which the parties were in error. The sequence of future events, from the City of Maplewood transforming its fire department, to the changes to the pension plan, and the requirement that some portion of the plan funds be paid out to current part-time firefighters not hired on to full-time status, was not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of settlement. The award on stipulation cannot be vacated due to these subsequent events under Minn. Stat. § 176.461.

As to the employee’s disability retirement payout, the employee described entitlement to $79,039.56, and an actual payout of $47,823.73. The employee contends that he would not have agreed to the settlement of his claim had he known that this payout was to be reduced. The employee does not indicate what additional benefits he would have sought or how the disability payout affected the amounts paid as workers’ compensation benefits under the settlement. There is no indication that both parties relied on any particular disability retirement payout figure in calculating the settlement figure of $88,000.00. To constitute a mutual mistake of fact, the misperception must be mutual and material to the transaction. Shelton v. Schwan’s Sales Enters., 53 W.C.D. 110, 113 (W.C.C.A. 1995), summarily aff’d (Minn. Sept. 5, 1995). An error as to whether one party will receive a benefit extrinsic to the settlement has been held to not constitute a mutual mistake of fact. Zupon v. Forklifts, Inc., No. WC06-208 (W.C.C.A. Mar. 22, 2007). The employee’s perception that he would be paid 100 percent of his accrued retirement funds may have influenced his willingness to settle his workers’ compensation claim, but there is no indication that the self-insured employer considered such a payout in arriving at the settlement in this matter.

We recognize that the circumstances of the employee’s physical condition, his need to discontinue service as a volunteer firefighter, and the subsequent changes to the City of Maplewood’s fire department have resulted in an economic detriment to the employee. But this court is limited in jurisdiction to the benefits payable through the workers’ compensation system and cannot exercise any control over pension systems. The employee has not demonstrated a mutual mistake of fact that would support vacating the award on stipulation. For these reasons, the employee’s petition to vacate is denied.