SUPREME COURT OPINION SUMMARY - Simonson v. Douglas County
On April 16, 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its Decision in Simonson v. Douglas County, 19 N.W.3d 447 (Minn. 2025), which addressed the factors a court should consider when assessing whether an employee can rebut the retirement presumption of Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2016), as well as the appropriate burden of proof by which an employee must meet to rebut the retirement presumption.
By way of background, Ms. Simonson sustained an admitted back injury in 1996 while working for Douglas County Hospital. The parties later stipulated that the employee was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the injury, and the employee was paid permanent total disability benefits.
The employee’s PTD benefits continued until she turned 67 years old in 2023, at which point the employer and insurer stopped issuing her PTD benefits based on the statutory retirement presumption. The presumption indicated, in part, that “permanent total disability shall cease at age 67 because the employee is presumed retired from the labor market.” Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2016). The statute further stated, however, that this presumption “is rebuttable by the employee” and that the “subjective statement the employee is not retired is not sufficient in itself to rebut the presumptive evidence of retirement but may be considered along with other evidence.”
The employee then filed a Claim Petition, asserting entitlement to ongoing PTD benefits on the basis that she could rebut this presumption.
During the hearing, the employee offered testimony and evidence regarding her financial situation as well as her intent to not retire at the age of 67. The employer and insurer provided evidence through a representative of Douglas County that there were few employees working past the age of 67, and other evidence suggesting that the employee would have retired at or before the age of 67. They also argued that the appropriate legal test is to assess whether the employee would have retired if the work injury had never occurred.
The compensation judge determined that the employee had not rebutted the retirement presumption, essentially by weighing different factors in favor of the employee and in favor of the employer and insurer. The compensation judge determined that the burden of proof in overcoming the presumption was that of a preponderance of evidence rather than “substantial proof to the contrary,” which was the higher standard that the employer insurer argued should apply.
The employee then appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, and the WCCA overturned the compensation judge's decision. In rendering their decision, the WCCA determined that an employee's financial situation was paramount to the presumption issue.
The employer and insurer appealed the WCCA decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and after an analysis of prior caselaw and the relevant statutes, the Supreme Court determined that the proper determination for assessing whether an employee has rebutted the retirement presumption is “whether retirement would have happened anyway, even if the employee had not been disabled.” Grunst v. Immanuel-St. Joseph Hosp., 424 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1988). The Court went on to emphasize that compensation judges should consider a number of factors and “assess how the factors interact with each other in a difficult and sensitive balancing process,” and indicated that no single factor was dispositive in that Decision.
The Minnesota Supreme Court then remanded the case to the compensation judge for further findings consistent with its Decision.
With regard to the evidentiary standard required to overcome the retirement presumption, the Supreme Court concluded that an employee must rebut the presumption by a preponderance of evidence rather than “substantial proof to the contrary.”
In summary, this decision provided legal clarity to retirement-presumption issues, in that the primary consideration is, according to Grunst, what would have happened had the employee never been disabled as a result of the work injury, and that courts must consider a number of factors in addressing that question.
Summary Prepared by Attorney Jason Heikkinen