No. A14-1831
W.C.C.A. No. WC14-5699
CHRISTOPHER C. ROSKOS, Relator, v. BAUER ELEC., INC. and FEDERATED MUT. GROUP, Respondents.
SUPREME COURT - APRIL 20, 2015
Considered without oral argument.
Dietzen, J.
Affirmed without opinion.
WCCA decision date, September 23, 2014.
CONCURRENCE
Lillehaug, J.
As the order summarily affirming the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals states, the order is not precedential. The court thereby leaves to another case, on another day, these important issues of interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 176.101 (2014) (enacted in 2000):
1. What is the meaning of the word “may’ in the statute, which provides: “This lump-sum payment may be discounted to the present value calculated up to a maximum five percent basis?” (Emphasis added.) Does the workers’ compensation judge have the discretion to discount - - or not to discount - - to present value? If so, by what legal standard does the judge exercise that discretion?
2. What is the meaning of the phrase “discounted to the present value,” and by what legal standard should any discount be calculated? Does the calculation include determinations of: (a) the risk that the workers’ compensation system would not pay the period installments over the relevant interval; and (b) the current interest rate on an investment of equal risk?
Given that these issues of first impression remain undecided, I respectfully concur in the result.