 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Neumann v. AT&T;Communications9/14/2004
Appellant Kelly Neumann challenges summary judgment granted to respondent AT&T;Communications, Inc., asserting that the district court erred by determining that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that AT&T;did not violate Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 2 (2002), when it refused to provide her with continued employment after a work-related injury. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Appellant Kelly Neumann injured her back in a work-related accident during her employment with respondent AT&T;Communications, Inc. (AT&T;. Because Neumann had a pre-existing back injury, AT&T;classified her condition for purposes of its ERISA-governed disability plan (the plan) as an "accident" only for the day of the accident and as a "sickness" for the remaining time she was unable to work. Neumann, however, received workers' compensation benefits during the times relevant to this appeal.
Neumann challenged AT&T;s determination that she should receive "sickness" rather than "accident" benefits under the plan in a lawsuit that alleged, among other claims, retaliatory discharge for seeking workers' compensation benefits in violation of Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1 (2002), and refusal to offer continued employment in violation of Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 2 (2002). The case was removed to federal district court, which determined that it had exclusive jurisdiction over all claims related to the plan. The federal district court granted summary judgment to AT&T;on all of Neumann's claims except the claim that AT&T;violated Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 2. That claim was remanded to the state district court.
On remand, AT&T;moved the district court for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to AT&T;based on Neumann's failure "to present any evidence that [AT&T;s] actions were unreasonable" and her inability "to come up with a plan that would return her to work." This appeal followed. The only issue before this court is whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to AT&T;on Neumann's claim that it violated Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 2.
DECISION
On an appeal from summary judgment, the reviewing court asks whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). The reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). The reviewing court does not defer to the trial court's decision on a pure question of law. Frost-Benco Elec. Ass'n v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn. 1984).
" here is no genuine issue of material fact for trial when the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt as to a factual issue and which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party's case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997). A genuine issue for trial must be established by substantial evidence. Id. at 69-70.
Neumann asserts that the district court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to her claim and misapplied Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 2 (2002), which provides in relevant part:
An employer who, without reasonable cause, refuses to offer continued employment to its employee when employment is available within the employee's physical limitations shall be liable in a civil action for one year's wages. . . . up to a maximum of $15,000. . . . In determining the av
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|