COURT OF APPEALS SUMMARY - Krumsieg vs. Bloomington Metro Mitsubishi

DANIEL KRUMSIEG, Employee/Appellant, v. BLOOMINGTON METRO MITSUBISHI and FARM BUREAU PROP. & CAS., Employer-Insurer/Respondents, and FAIRVIEW HEALTH SERVS. – ALL ENTITIES, N. MEM’L HEALTH CARE, BHSI, MERCY HOSP., ABBOTT N.W. HOSP., HEALTHPARTNERS, INC., and VGM d/b/a HOMELINK, Intervenors.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COURT OF APPEALS

FEBRUARY 24, 2025

No. WC24-6573

The employee suffered a work-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) in 2007. At the time of the injury, the employee was considered morbidly obese and had been previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder and severe obstructive sleep apnea.  The employer and insurer accepted liability for the TBI only and eventually stipulated that the employee was permanently and totally disabled.

After the 2007 work injury, the employee’s pre-existing obesity and sleep apnea conditions allegedly worsened, and he also developed type II diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and low testosterone. He attributed these conditions to the TBI. The employer and insurer disputed these claims.  The employee also claimed a permanent partial disability (PPD) rating of 95% plus 20% pursuant to Minn. R. 5223.0360. The employer and insurer disputed this claim and stipulated that the employee was entitled to (and being compensated for) a rating of 81.56%.

The employee also argued that one of the employer’s experts lacked foundation for his opinions and further, that sanctions were warranted because the expert destroyed notes and draft reports following his examination of the employee.

Following a hearing, the compensation judge ruled that the employee’s diabetes and high blood pressure conditions were causally related to the work injury, but that obesity, high cholesterol, sleep apnea, and low testosterone conditions were not.  The compensation judge also noted that the employee cited no authority requiring a medical expert to retain all notes used in formulating an opinion and that there was no duty to do so under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Further, the employee failed to show how the expert’s notes and drafts were relevant or how their destruction was prejudicial. The compensation judge denied the employee’s claims for additional PPD benefits.

On appeal, the WCCA ruled that there was substantial evidence in the record including well-founded expert medical opinions to support the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s obesity, high cholesterol, sleep apnea, and low testosterone conditions were not causally related to the employee’s work injury. The WCCA also held that the compensation did not err in adopting the opinion of a medical expert which was based on enough facts to form a reasonable opinion that was not based on speculation or conjecture.  Lastly, the WCCA ruled that the compensation judge did not abuse her discretion in declining to impose sanctions for alleged spoliation of evidence because there was no duty to retain those documents and because the employee failed to demonstrate relevance or prejudice.

Summary prepared by Attorney Stephen Ward