Drusch v. City of Howard Lake Fire Dep’t, No. WC24-6556 (W.C.C.A. September 30, 2024)
The employee was a volunteer firefighter for the employer for nearly 30 years. On January 13, 2020, at the age of 49, the employee died of a heart attack. Back in 1991 when he was first hired, he was not required to undergo a physical examination. He was promoted in 2014 to Fire Chief, which his wife and the current Fire Chief testified was more stressful than the position of firefighter.
During his career as a firefighter, the employee was also employed as a full-time electrician. In the process of obtaining a CDL, he underwent a physical examination on May 7, 2010. His cardiovascular results were normal.
The day before the employee died, he received a page to respond to an emergency. He reported to the station where he learned that his assistance wasn’t required. He returned home and later complained to his wife of discomfort and indigestion. The next morning, he was found unresponsive and not breathing. An autopsy was later performed and the cause of death was atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and acute myocardial infarction.
The employee’s wife, the petitioner, filed a claim for dependency benefits in January 2022. The self-insured employer denied the claim, asserting that the presumption in Minn. Stat. 176.011, subd. 15(b) does not apply and that the employee’s death was the result of a non-work-related condition. The employer/insurer obtained a narrative report and supplemental report from Dr. Richard Brody, who opined the work activities didn’t contribute to the development of coronary artery disease since the emergency call on the evening before the employee’s death was not acutely stressful. The petitioner’s expert, Dr. Charles Wade, issued a narrative report opining that the employee’s coronary sclerosis was sustained as a result of his employment as a firefighter and was specifically caused by occupational exposures to sleep disruption, inhaled smoke, and psychosocial stress.
The petitioner’s claim for dependency benefits came on for hearing on October 30, 2023. The compensation judge, Nicholas Chang, found the petitioner failed to prove that the presumption under 176.011, subd. 15(b) applied and that the employee didn’t sustain an occupational disease. The petitioner appealed.
On appeal, the WCCA noted that the comp judge listed 4 statutory elements that were necessary for the presumption to apply. The judge did not find that the last element, a written report from a physical examination, was filed with the employer, therefore the presumption didn’t apply. The petitioner argued that strict compliance with the statute is not required and substantial compliance will allow the presumption to be applied. She relied on Linnell, a Supreme Court case which overturned a comp judge’s failure to apply the statutory presumption where there was no written medical report showing whether the employee had undergone a preemployment examination, although by reasonable inferences from other evidence, it appeared likely that the employee was free of the disease at the onset of employment. The petitioner at hearing introduced multiple physical examinations between 2009 and 2018 which showed normal cardiac examinations and the 2010 CDL examination.
The WCCA concluded that the employee’s multiple normal cardiac findings over the years clearly required an inference that he did not have coronary sclerosis at the time he was hired. Therefore, the court reversed the comp judge’s decision and held that the presumption should have been applied. Since the comp judge failed to reach the question of whether the employer/insurer rebutted the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence, the court remanded back to the comp judge.
Takeaway: Under Linnell, an employee’s lack of a pre-employment examination is not required for the presumption under Minn. Stat. 176.011, subd 15(b) to apply. So long as the employee can provide a reasonable inference from other evidence that it was likely the employee was free of the occupational disease at the onset of employment, then that statutory requirement will be met.