The issues before the Court were (1) whether Mrs. Farah met the definition of putative spouse and whether she was entitled to dependency benefits; and (2) whether the award of penalties by the compensation judge should be higher.
The Employee, Mohamud Mohamud, was working as a truck driver for Bashka Express, owned by Ali Ibrahim, when he was killed in a collision on May 19, 2021. Mr. Ibrahim was uninsured for workers’ compensation benefits at the time of Mr. Mohamud’s death.
Two months prior to the Employee’s death, he married Mrs. Farah, after getting engaged on December 9, 2020. The two met in 2019. They also purportedly were planning an American-style wedding for June of 2021. No evidence of a marriage license was obtained or any filing of a marriage certificate; however, there was an Imam who signed an Affidavit of Marriage.
Mrs. Farah filed a Claim Petition seeking dependency benefits on behalf of herself and the couple’s child. Primary liability was denied by Employer Bashka and Mr. Ibrahim and argued the Employee was an independent contractor. Employer Capital Express was joined as a party who also denied primary liability.
At the Hearing, Employer Bashka conceded an employment relationship and Employer Capital agreed to pay dependency benefits to the Employee’s minor child; Mrs. Farah’s dependency benefits remained in dispute. The compensation judge concluded she was not a putative spouse and awarded penalties against Employer Bashka of 10% for a frivolous defense and against Employer Capital of 5%. No discovery-based sanctions were awarded.
As it relates to the first issue surrounding dependency benefits, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.111, family members who are wholly or partially supported by a deceased Employee at the time of their death are eligible. In this case, it was undisputed the couple was not legally married under Minnesota law. However, Mrs. Farah argued she was a putative spouse under Minn. Stat. § 518.055 and thus was eligible. Mrs. Farah testified the couple did not get the chance to make their marriage legal due to his death. While the WCCA questioned the compensation judge’s analysis of § 518.055, they also noted the burden to establish putative spouse status was on Mrs. Farah and cited to a lack of testimony established what she knew, believed, or relied upon either at the time of their wedding ceremony in March 2021 or at the time of his death in May 2021. Because of this, in using a review that a finding must be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous and manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence, the WCCA found the lack of testimony established in the record insufficient to overcome the judge’s holding, despite their disagreement with the judge’s analysis.
As it relates to the penalties and sanctions, a judge has discretion to award up to 30% of the total compensation for a frivolously denied claim. Mrs. Farah argued numerous reasons as to why it should have been higher, citing to prejudice against the Employee’s minor child. There was no question that dependency benefits to the minor child were denied for over two years. In a review of the record for evaluation on if the penalty amount was commensurate with the harm, there was again, little to no testimony elicited regarding such harm. Because of this, the WCCA was unable to find the compensation judge abused his discretion in awarding penalties.
Judge Sundquist concurring opinion:
She noted the credibility determination here cemented the decision and noted that another judge may have found in favor of Mrs. Farah. It was emphasized that according to custom, Mrs. Farah did not attend the wedding ceremony; it follows that the expectation for Mrs. Farah to have knowledge of the required legal documentation ignored her limited involvement. She wrote about the importance of treating all parties with dignity, respect, and cultural awareness.
She also noted drawbacks of the dependency statute wherein a surviving parent of a deceased employee’s child, despite living together and being dependent on the employee, is not eligible which is actually antithetic to the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act. She opined this requires legislative correction, pointing out the expansive list of relationships for defining “family member” under the MN Paid Leave Act, would allow individuals such as Mrs. Farah not to have to bear the consequences of an outdated statute.
Takeaway: Create strategies, not only for a comprehensive record in the event of an appeal, but for adequate arguments to have at Hearing, which elicit specific testimony and/or evidence in support of and in defense for elements of any given disputed statute. Here, if there were sufficient testimony and/or evidence, the WCCA may have overturned the compensation judge’s findings.