 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edward v. Sentinel Management Co.6/6/2000
As a term of the settlement of his claim for workers' compensation benefits, relator was required to quit his employment. After applying for reemployment benefits, the commissioner's representative determined that relator quit without good reason caused by employer, disqualifying him from receiving benefits. On appeal, relator contends that he was required to terminate his employment to obtain a settlement, constituting good reason to quit his employment. Because relator had the option of remaining employed and continuing to pursue his workers' compensation claim, we hold that relator did not have good reason caused by his employer to quit and, therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
Relator Timothy Edward was employed as a caretaker/leasing agent by respondent Sentinel Management Company. On November 30, 1996, in the course of his employment, Edward suffered a low back injury . Edward filed a workers' compensation claim with respect to the incident. Despite his injury, Edward was able to perform his job and continued to work full-time without restrictions for Sentinel for several years.
On October 9, 1998, Edward and Sentinel agreed to a settlement of his workers' compensation claim. Under the terms of the settlement, Sentinel was required to pay Edward $30,000. In exchange, Edward agreed to resign his position with Sentinel effective on the date of the award and to sign a voluntary resignation form. The form stated that Edward voluntarily resigned " n exchange for valuable consideration which has been paid herein." The award and Edward's resignation became effective on November 11, 1998. Edward nevertheless continued to work for Sentinel for another month until he was informed that, pursuant to the settlement agreement and his resignation, he was required to quit.
Edward applied to the Department of Economic Security for reemployment benefits, but the department determined that he was disqualified. Specifically, the department found that Edward had not "quit with good reason caused by the employer." Edward appealed the department's determination to a reemployment insurance judge. The reemployment insurance judge affirmed the department's decision. Edward thereafter appealed to the representative of the Commissioner of Economic Security. The commissioner's representative affirmed the decision of the reemployment insurance judge. This appeal followed.
ISSUE
Did Edward quit his employment with good reason caused by Sentinel?
ANALYSIS
An employee who quits employment is disqualified from reemployment benefits unless the employee "quit the employment because of a good reason caused by the employer." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (1998). The findings of the commissioner's representative are accorded considerable deference. White v. Metropolitan Med. Ctr., 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983). Whether an employee had good reason to quit, however, is a question of law. Wood v. Menard, Inc., 490 N.W.2d 441, 443 (Minn. App. 1992). This court exercises its independent judgment on questions of law. Ress v. Abbott NW Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989).
The legislature has defined a "good reason" as a reason:
(1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible; and
(2) that is significant and would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3 (1998).
Once the employer establishes that the employee quit the employment, the burden of proof shifts to the employee to show that he had good reason. Williams v. Right Step Academy, 607 N.W.2d 482, 484-85 (Minn. App. 2000).
Edward argues
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|