JURISDICTION – OUT-OF-STATE INJURY; STATUTE CONSTRUED – MINN. STAT. § 176.041. There is no Minnesota jurisdiction for the injury of an over-the-road truck driver who is injured outside of Minnesota, because the duties performed by the employee in Minnesota were merely incidental duties, and not primary duties of his employment under the intent of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2.
Compensation Judge: Kristina B. Lund
Attorneys: Mary Beth Boyce, Schmidt & Salita Law Team, PLLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota, for the Respondent. Jerome D. Feriancek, Northland Trial Team, PLLC, Duluth, Minnesota, for the Appellants.
Reversed.
KATHRYN H. CARLSON, Judge
The employer and insurer assert that the compensation judge erred in concluding that Minnesota has jurisdiction over the employee’s work injury. We agree and reverse.
Ronald Brand, the employee, has worked in the trucking industry since 1977 and as an over-the-road truck driver for United Road Service Midwest, the employer, since July 10, 2009. At the time he was hired by the employer, the employee was living in Minnesota. The employer called the employee while he was at his home and he traveled to Michigan for an interview, where he was hired and underwent training. The employee was initially dispatched out of a Michigan terminal and later out of an Indiana terminal. The employer is a Michigan corporation with its headquarters in Michigan. It has no physical presence in Minnesota.
The employee was hired to haul vehicles between auctions and dealerships. He was paid a percentage of the load payout, rather than by the hour or by the mile. The employee hauled vehicles through Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and South Dakota. He had previously hauled in Minnesota, but not in the six months prior to the injury. At his request, the employer would allow the employee to drive the company-owned truck to his home in Minnesota, when his last stop was within 150 miles of his home. The employee would tell the dispatchers when he wanted to go home, and they would find him loads that would bring him within 150 miles. The employer’s trucks were equipped with GPS monitors that tracked the employee’s location and the length of time spent driving, as well as origin and destination logs showing the start and end of each route and the timing of inspections. In the three months preceding his injury, the employee drove home to Minnesota three times, approximately one time per month. Each time the employee was in Minnesota, it was at his request and was not for the purpose of hauling vehicles for the employer or for any other employer-based purpose.
When the employee parked the truck at his home in Minnesota during winter months, he would plug in an engine block heater. Before leaving his home to return to driving, the employee performed pre-trip inspections of the truck which included checking fluids, tires, lights, and signals. These inspections took approximately five minutes. The pre-trip inspections were performed each day he was driving, regardless of where he spent the night. In the three months preceding the work injury, the employee performed five-minute pre-trip inspections on three occasions in Minnesota. When he was home in Minnesota, he would fuel up the truck at a station close to his home, and he would complete federally-mandated logging of his driving.
On March 27, 2020, the employee was driving from Black River Falls, Wisconsin, to an auction in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, when he was involved in a collision. An oncoming vehicle crossed the center line while going around a curve and collided with the employee’s truck, which went into the ditch and was later declared a total loss. The employee had not been in Minnesota since February 27, 2020.
The employee suffered neck pain and stiffness following the accident and sought medical treatment on April 1, 2020. He participated in physical therapy in the spring and summer of 2020 and reported significant neck pain during a phone visit on June 23, 2020. An MRI scan was recommended, which showed significant degenerative changes, a disc herniation at C3-4, and foraminal stenosis at several levels. The employee’s symptoms continued, and he underwent injections, chiropractic treatment, and acupuncture.
The employer and its insurer filed a First Report of Injury in Indiana, which showed the address of the employer in Indiana, the address of the employee in Minnesota, and the location of the collision in Wisconsin. The employer and insurer paid the employee wage loss benefits under Indiana workers’ compensation laws from June 13, 2020, through his return to work on September 27, 2020. The employer and insurer approved a vocational consultation with a Minnesota qualified rehabilitation consultant (QRC) in May 2020. In February 2021, the QRC was advised that no further rehabilitation services would be approved because there was no Minnesota jurisdiction and because services were being provided by the case manager assigned to the claim in Indiana. The employee was terminated due to productivity issues, after which he applied for and received unemployment benefits in Indiana.
The employee was examined by Dr. Kristen Zeller at the request of the employer and insurer. In a report dated October 21, 2024, Dr. Zeller diagnosed the employee as having cervical spine axial pain with facet arthropathy. She opined that he could work with restrictions, that the medical treatment rendered had been reasonable and necessary, and that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). In a supplemental report dated January 7, 2025, Dr. Zeller rated the employee with a 3.5 percent permanent partial disability (PPD) rating related to the work injury.
Dr. Robert Wengler examined the employee at the request of his attorney and issued a report dated November 4, 2024. He diagnosed the employee as having a destabilized stenotic motion segment at C6-7 with muscle spasm and severely limited range of motion. He opined that the employee could work with restrictions, had reached MMI, and had a permanency rating of 10 percent as a result of the work injury.
The employee filed a claim petition to establish Minnesota jurisdiction, claiming entitlement to PPD benefits, vocational rehabilitation services, and payment of the intervention interests of Vocational Restoration Services, CentraCare Clinic, and CentraCare St. Cloud Hospital. The employee’s claim came on for hearing before a compensation judge who found that because the employee regularly performed “some of the primary duties of his employment in Minnesota,” Minnesota had jurisdiction over the March 27, 2020, work injury. (Finding 43.) The compensation judge awarded PPD benefits, vocational rehabilitation services, and the intervention claim of Vocational Restoration Services. The employer and insurer appeal.[1]
The facts relevant to the issue of jurisdiction are undisputed in this case. As such, this court must consider whether the compensation judge’s legal conclusion that Minnesota jurisdiction applies to the work injury pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2, under a de novo standard of review. In doing so, no deference will be given to the compensation judge’s determination. Varda v. Nw. Airlines Corp., 692 N.W.2d 440, 65 W.C.D. 92 (Minn. 2005); Dorr v. Nat’l Marrow Donor Program, 70 W.C.D. 690 (W.C.C.A. 2010), summarily aff’d (Minn. Nov. 29, 2010).
Generally, injuries sustained outside of Minnesota by employees of non-Minnesota employers are not covered by the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA). The WCA provides an exception for employees who perform primary duties of their employment in Minnesota and are injured outside of Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2. In this case, the compensation judge concluded that Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2, applied and that Minnesota had jurisdiction for the employee’s work injury, citing his performance of pre-trip inspections, completion of driving logs, and fueling and storing the company truck as primary duties of his employment which were regularly performed in Minnesota. On appeal, the employer and insurer argue that the duties performed in Minnesota were not primary duties. We agree and reverse.
In applying Minn. Stat. § 176.041 in this case, we first consider the legislative history of the statute, and how it is intended to limit out-of-state application of the WCA. Prior to its repeal in 1974, Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 5, limited the extraterritorial application of the WCA, stating “[e]xcept as specifically provided by subdivisions 2 and 3 of this section, injuries occurring outside of this state are not subject to the provisions of this chapter.”[2] Subsequently, in 1983, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the repeal of this statute in Hutchins v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 761, 35 W.C.D. 800 (Minn. 1983). In Hutchins, the employee was a Wisconsin resident who was hired outside of Minnesota and drove truck for a Minnesota employer. The employee was dispatched out of Minnesota. He was fatally injured in a collision in Wisconsin. In affirming the lower court’s award of benefits, the supreme court determined that the repeal of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 5 (1971), expanded the scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction, ended the exclusivity of subdivisions 2 and 3 of that section, and revived the common-law business localization test.[3] Citing Fuller v. Farmers’ Coop. Oil Ass’n, 322 N.W.2d 359, 35 W.C.D. 133 (Minn. 1982), the supreme court stated that the WCA has consistently been recognized to be remedial legislation entitled to liberal construction, and that “[i]n light of this recognition, we should not assume that the legislature intended the repeal of subdivision 5 to be an action without effect.” Id. at 763-64, 35 W.C.D. at 805.
Also in 1983, shortly after Hutchins was issued, Minn. Stat. § 176.001 was amended to state:
It is the specific intent of the legislature that workers’ compensation cases shall be decided on their merits and that the common law rule of “liberal construction” based on the supposed “remedial” basis of workers’ compensation legislation shall not apply in such cases.
In 1986, Minn. Stat. § 176.041 was amended by Minnesota House Bill No. 1873 to add subdivision 5a, which added language similar to that which had been repealed from that section in 1974, limiting coverage for injuries occurring outside of Minnesota. The amendment stated, “[e]xcept as specifically provided by subdivisions 2 and 3, injuries occurring outside of this state are not subject to this chapter.” The Minnesota House minutes state that on February 19, 1986, the House Committee of Labor and Management amended the proposed legislation to add “restricting liability for out-of-state injuries,” to the title of House Bill No. 1873. The motion to amend was made on March 24, 1986, the motion prevailed, and subdivision 5a became law.
Given the legislative history and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decisions in Fuller and Hutchins, we do not assume that these changes were intended to be actions without effect. See Hutchins, 331 N.W.2d at 763-64, 35 W.C.D. at 805. The repeal of liberal construction in workers’ compensation cases, the addition of subdivision 5a, and the motion to amend the title of the house bill, reflect an intention of the legislature to limit liability for out-of-state injuries. This history is relevant to the interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2, and whether the duties performed by an employee while in Minnesota were “primary duties.”
Extraterritorial application of the WCA is provided for injuries occurring outside of Minnesota under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2, which states:
If an employee who regularly performs the primary duties of employment within this state receives an injury while outside of this state in the employ of the same employer, the provisions of this chapter shall apply to such injury.
This court has defined a primary duty as one which is “a fundamental or basic part of an organized whole.” Gillund v. Royal/Milbank Ins. Co., 46 W.C.D. 520, 523 (W.C.C.A. 1992) (citing The Am. Heritage Dictionary 983 (2d ed. 1985)), summarily aff’d (Minn. Apr. 30, 1992) (an employee’s duties as an insurance claim adjuster of examining damage and investigating accident claims were essential and not incidental to employment). “Fundamental” is defined as “central,” “serving as an essential component,” and “of major significance.” The Am. Heritage Dictionary 539 (2d ed. 1991). Primary duties are the main, most significant responsibilities or functions that define an employee’s occupation. See Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Eull, 594 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. App. 1999) (driving considered part of an employee’s “primary duties” as defined in a business exclusion of an automobile insurance policy where the job title included delivery person, 75 percent of work time involved delivering pizzas, and pizza delivery was considered a primary duty).
In this case, the employee was an over-the-road truck driver. The central and essential requirement of his job was to haul vehicles to and from car dealerships, often driving from one state to another, while adhering to delivery schedules and following state and federal regulations. The employee did not haul freight for the employer in Minnesota, nor was he paid for his time in Minnesota. He was in Minnesota for personal purposes, and not to further the employer’s interest. The employee was allowed to drive the company-owned truck to his home. While in Minnesota, he completed driving logs, performed a five-minute pre-trip inspection of the truck, and fueled the truck at a gas station near his home. In the winter, he would plug in the truck to keep the engine warm. We conclude that the compensation judge erred by finding these duties to be primary duties under the WCA.
The compensation judge, in her memorandum, explained that because a pre-trip inspection is federally required, it is not optional and is thus a primary duty. However, not every duty that is required, by law or otherwise, is a primary duty. Duties which are required to complete a core job function or responsibility, but are not central to, or an essential component of, the employee’s job, are merely incidental. Such duties are not primary duties within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2. To conclude otherwise would render obtaining and maintaining a commercial driver’s license, attending Department of Transportation (DOT) physicals, and completing driving logs primary duties for a truck driver. These duties, while required by law, are not core functions of the job. Likewise, although the truck requires fuel to complete the task of freight delivery, fueling the truck is not a primary duty. In this case, the pre-inspections, logging, and fueling that the employee did in Minnesota were required to complete his primary responsibility of hauling vehicles but were incidental duties and not primary duties.
It is axiomatic that this employee cannot perform his primary duty of hauling vehicles without also performing incidental duties, such as pre-inspections and fueling the truck. To find that an employee who fuels a company-owned truck in Minnesota and who is injured outside of Minnesota while working for a non-Minnesota employer, is nonetheless covered under the WCA, would lead to an expansion of jurisdiction that was contemplated but rejected by the legislature. To deem such incidental duties performed within the state as adequate to confer jurisdiction would be contrary to the limiting nature of the statute.[4]
We reverse the compensation judge’s finding that Minnesota jurisdiction applies to the employee’s injury and the corresponding award of benefits.[5]
[1] The employee filed a motion to strike a document attached to the appellant brief which had not been admitted into evidence before the compensation judge at the hearing below. The authority of this court “is limited to reviewing the record as submitted to the compensation judge.” Sharp v. Great N. Oil Co., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Dec. 13, 1990). The employee’s motion to strike is granted.
[2] In 1974, Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2, stated:
If an employee who regularly performs the primary duties of his employment within this state, or who is hired to perform the primary duties of his employment within this state, receives an injury while temporarily outside of this state in the employ of the same employer, the provisions of this chapter shall apply to such injury. If a resident of this state is transferred outside the territorial limits of the United States as an employee of a Minnesota employer, he shall be presumed to be temporarily employed outside of this state while so employed.
Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3 (1974), stated:
If an employee hired in this state by a Minnesota employer, receives an injury while temporarily employed outside of this state, such injury shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. If the employer’s business is in Minnesota and the employee’s residence is in Minnesota, employment outside of this state shall be considered temporary.
[3] The business localization test was used before the 1967 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 176.041, that originally added subdivisions 2 through 5. Under that test, an employee injured while out of state could be entitled to benefits in Minnesota upon proof that the employer’s business was localized in Minnesota and that the employee’s services at the time of the injury were referable to that localized business. Follese v. E. Airlines, 271 N.W.2d 824, 31 W.C.D. 198 (Minn. 1978).
[4] We also note that the compensation judge found that the employee completed “some of” the primary duties of his employment in Minnesota, whereas the statute requires that the employee perform “the primary duties” to confer jurisdiction. The legislature used the definitive article “the” to emphasize specificity and exhaustiveness, a complete and specific set of duties. We disagree that an aggregate effect of “some” of the employee’s duties could confer jurisdiction under the WCA.
[5] The employer and insurer also assert on appeal that the duties cited by the compensation judge were not regularly performed in Minnesota as required under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2. Because we conclude that the employee did not perform primary duties in Minnesota, we need not address this issue.