Benjamin Lorentz and Jack Talcott Are Newly Admitted to the US District Court for Minnesota
Congratulations to Benjamin Lorentz and Jack Talcott for being sworn into the US District Court for Minnesota.
Matt Sloneker Obtained a Defense Verdict in Dental Malpractice Action
LJSP Shareholder Matt Sloneker obtained a defense verdict in a dental malpractice action tried in Hennepin County in May 2026. The plaintiff alleged that a general dentist had committed professional malpractice by deviating from the standard of care in several respects. After a 3-day trial the jury returned a verdict confirming that the dentist was not liable.
Rick Lind Donates Historic Sculpture “Owen” to Mitchell Hamline School of Law
This face, made of Kasota Stone, formed the keystone of a window arch in the 2nd Ramsey County Courthouse. Completed in 1889, the Courthouse was the first home of St. Paul College of Law, from 1900-1907. Designed by local architect Edward P. Bassford, the building was torn down in 1932. Composite piece by CoCo Lind Hohman.
Donated by Richard A. Lind ’76
Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson, P.A.
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. Celebrates 35 years in Business
The firm is excited to be turning 35 this year. On March 15, 1991, Rick Lind, Thomas Jensen & Ted Sullivan opened the doors to the firm. Over the past 35 years, we have grown to become one of the premier civil litigation law firms in the Midwest. We wish to thank all of our clients and employees for all of the successes that we’ve experienced over the year.
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson Welcomes New Partner Stuart Campbell
Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson welcomes Stuart Campbell as their newest Partner. Stuart’s primary areas of practice are business disputes, construction litigation, general disputes, general liability, products liability, employment litigation, commercial transportation and insurance litigation. Before joining the firm, Stuart served as a law clerk for a magistrate judge in the District of Minnesota. Stuart received his undergraduate degree from the University of Minnesota, and he received his Juris Doctor from Mitchell Hamline School of Law where he was a managing editor for the Mitchell Hamline Law Review.
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson Welcomes New Partner Lauren Hoglund
Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson welcomes Lauren Hoglund as their newest Partner. Lauren focuses her practice on advising and defending clients in complex litigation in a variety of industries, including insurance defense, medical malpractice and employment law. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of St. Thomas and her Juris Doctor from Mitchell Hamline College of Law.
Madelyn Michelini Joins LJSP as an Associate Attorney
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. is excited to announce that Madelyn Michelini has joined the firm as an Associate Attorney. Madelyn is a recent graduate of Drake University Law School. She has a strong background in employment and labor law, administrative hearings, workplace disputes, and civil lawsuits.
Madelyn brings practical experience and a passion for litigation to her defense practice, helping clients navigate claims efficiently and effectively.
Benjamin Lorentz Joins LJSP as an Associate Attorney
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. is excited to announce that Benjamin Lorentz has joined the firm as an Associate Attorney. Ben is a recent graduate of the University of North Dakota School of Law where he graduated cum laude. Ben was the Editor in Chief of the North Dakota Law Review was also a Judicial Extern for the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
Matthew Bonniwell Joins Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A.
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. is excited to announce that Matthew Bonniwell has joined the firm as an Associate Attorney. Matthew represents employers and insurers in civil litigation. He primarily defends workers’ compensation claims and advises his clients on strategies to minimize claims and reduce losses. Matt graduated from the University of Puget Sound where he studied business and economics. He worked in the financial services industry for nearly a decade before obtaining his JD from Hamline University School of Law.
Prior to practicing worker’s compensation law, Matt represented individuals and businesses in a variety of civil matters. Additionally, he was s district attorney in Roswell New Mexico where he aggressively prosecuted felonies and took many cases to trial. Matt also serves in the United States Army Reserves as a Judge Advocate and has deployed to Kuwait in support of operations in the middle east.
Congratulations to the 2025 Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson Super Lawyers
2025 Minnesota Super Lawyers:
William L. Davidson, Appellate
Mark A. Fredrickson, Personal Injury Defense
Thomas D. Jensen, Civil Litigation Defense
Timothy P. Jung, Workers’ Comp
Patrick J. Larkin, Construction Litigation
Richard A. Lind, Civil Litigation Defense
Timothy J O’Connor, Civil Litigation Defense
Paul C. Peterson. Professional Liability Defense
Matthew D. Sloneker, Professional Liability Defense
Eric J. Steinhoff, Professional Liability Defense
Brian A. Wood, Personal Injury General Defense
2025 Minnesota Rising Star:
Brandon D. Meshbesher, Civil Litigation Defense
Congratulations to Jason Prochnow on Helping his Client Win a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff Wind Energy Corporation’s Lawsuit
Kudos to Shareholder Jason Prochnow as he helped a small Wisconsin Defendant Municipality win a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff Wind Energy Corporation’s lawsuit seeking an injunction to declare the two defendant municipalities’ Wind Energy Ordinances invalid under Wisconsin law. Plaintiff initially filed suit to enjoin an earlier version of our client’s Wind Energy ordinance. Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson advised our client Municipality to amend its local Wind Energy Ordinance to better comply with WI Law. Plaintiff Wind Energy Corporation and its large firm Foley & Lardner lawyers were still not satisfied with our client’s Amended Local Regulation (complaining it went too far under WI law) and the Plaintiff, represented by Foley, proceeded with an Amended Complaint demanding a preliminary injunction to prevent the two co-defendant municipalities (our client and a neighbor) from enforcing their Amended Wind Energy regulations.
We first opposed and helped defeat the Plaintiff Wind Energy Company’s request for a Preliminary Injunction. We, along with our co-defendant, subsequently brought Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as a matter of law, which were recently granted by the Court. The Plaintiff may appeal, but the two small Defendant municipalities obtained a complete victory in Marathon County Circuit Court against the large Wind Energy corp.
Shareholder Eric Steinhoff Recognized as a Board Certified Civil Trial Specialist by the MSBA
Congratulations to Eric Steinhoff, he was granted the title of Board Certified Civil Trial Specialist by the MN State Bar Association Civil Trial Certification Board.
Eric Steinhoff obtained dismissal of a lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident on summary judgment
Eric Steinhoff obtained dismissal of a lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident on summary judgment. The court found that there was no evidence of negligent conduct on the part of the client and that there was no evidence that the client’s conduct caused the claimed injuries. Order Granting Summary Judgment-668081
LJSP Congratulates New Partner Sean Kelly
Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson welcomes Sean Kelly as their newest partner. Sean represents businesses and individuals in litigation across Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. His practice involves defending clients in automobile and trucking accidents, personal injury, construction defect, property damage, premises liability, and wrongful death cases. Prior to joining the firm, Sean served as a Judge Advocate in the United States Army, where he was a prosecutor and legal advisor to commanders in the 82nd Airborne Division, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), and 4th Infantry Division. He has deployed to Iraq and Europe and has supported domestic operations in support of civil authorities within the United States.
Attorneys Lauren Hoglund and Stuart Campbell attend the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Trial Academy from November 7-November 8, 2024
Attorneys Lauren Hoglund and Stuart Campbell had the opportunity to attend the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Trial Academy from November 7-November 8, 2024. There, they received tips and instructions in key components of the jury trial from experienced defense attorneys and sitting judges. These included recommendations for conducting effective voir dire, ideas for making compelling opening statements and closing arguments, and instructions in navigating direct and cross-examinations of experts.
The attendees then got to take these ideas and practice them in a simulated jury trial, where they got real-time feedback on their skills. Stuart and Lauren found the experience both educational and fun and want to thank the MDLA and all the presenters and instructors for their guidance.
Brandon Meshbesher and Bill Davidson Obtained Summary Judgment in a Defamation Case.
Brandon Meshbesher and Bill Davidson obtained summary judgment in a defamation case. The Plaintiff, a refugee from Afghanistan, sued the nonprofit that was responsible for providing transition and support for newly arrived refugees along with two individual employees. The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to present any admissible evidence that our clients made any defamatory statements and Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Congratulations to the 2024 Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson Super Lawyers
2024 Minnesota Super Lawyers:
William L. Davidson, Appellate
Mark A. Fredrickson, Personal Injury General Defense
Thomas D. Jensen, Civil Litigation Defense
Patrick J. Larkin, Construction Litigation
Richard A. Lind, Civil Litigation Defense
Timothy J O’Connor, Civil Litigation Defense
Paul C. Peterson. Professional Liability Defense
Matthew D. Sloneker, Civil Litigation Defense
Katie H. Storms, Workers’ Compensation
Brian A. Wood, Personal Injury General Defense
2023 Minnesota Rising Star:
Brandon D. Meshbesher, Civil Litigation Defense
Matt Sloneker Obtained a Defense Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Trial in Hennepin County.
Matt Sloneker obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice trial in Hennepin County. The plaintiff alleged a failure to obtain informed consent for an orthopedic surgery. After a three-day trial, the jury found that the defendant doctor was not negligent.
Tom Jensen, Bill Davidson, and Stuart Campbell Obtained a Complete Victory from the Minnesota Court of Appeals
Tom Jensen, Bill Davidson, and Stuart Campbell recently obtained a complete victory from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The appeal involved crossclaims between the defendants in a personal injury action, and addressed questions of law regarding statutory and common law indemnification when an allegedly negligent employee is protected from out-of-pocket loss by personal liability insurance.
The plaintiff alleged injuries stemming from a massage, and she named the involved massage therapist and chiropractic clinic as defendants. Lind, Jensen represented the clinic. Plaintiff’s claims were ultimately settled, and the defendants’ insurers paid their settlement sums. For her crossclaim, the therapist argued that her personal insurer must be reimbursed by the clinic for the settlement sum paid to plaintiffs because she was entitled to statutory indemnification as the clinic’s employee. The clinic argued that statutory indemnification was precluded because the therapist had been indemnified by her personal insurer, and the clinic responded with its own crossclaim for common law indemnification to be paid by the therapist’s insurer. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the clinic on both claims. The therapist appealed.
In a published opinion, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the applicable employee indemnification statute was Minn. Stat. § 302A.521, which requires an employer to provide indemnification when an employee “has not been indemnified by another organization.” The Court of Appeals affirmed and concluded that under the statute, a person who has been indemnified by personal insurance is not entitled to statutory indemnification because the insurer is “another organization.” The Court of Appeals further held that common law indemnification claims are only precluded when the requirements for statutory indemnification are met. The Court of Appeals determined that the requirements for statutory indemnification were not met because the therapist had been indemnified by her insurer. Because the therapist failed to establish a right to statutory indemnification, the Court of Appeals concluded the clinic’s crossclaim could proceed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court.
Matt Sloneker Obtained a Defense Jury Verdict in a Dental Malpractice Trial in Hennepin County
Matt Sloneker obtained a defense jury verdict in a dental malpractice trial in Hennepin County. The plaintiff alleged several deviations from the standard of care causing damages, but the jury found that the defendant dentist was not negligent in connection with the care and treatment provided to the plaintiff.
LJSP Congratulates New Partner Brandon Meshbesher
Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson welcomes Brandon Meshbesher as their newest Partner. Brandon’s primary areas of practice are business disputes, employment litigation, general liability, and insurance litigation. Before entering private practice. Brandon obtained his law degree from the University of Minnesota Law School in 2015 and received a B.A. from the University of Denver in 2012.
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. Welcomes Franklin Rosenberg
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. is excited to announce that Franklin Rosenberg has joined the firm as an associate attorney.
Thomas Jensen Presented at Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport Iowa
Tom Jensen was a presenter on the topic, “From Accusation to Resolution: Understanding Chiropractic Malpractice Claims” hosted by Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa, on September 16, 2023.
Congratulations to the 2023 Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson Super Lawyers
2023 Minnesota Super Lawyers:
William L. Davidson, Appellate
Mark A. Fredrickson, Personal Injury General Defense
Thomas D. Jensen, Civil Litigation Defense
Patrick J. Larkin, Construction Litigation
Richard A. Lind, Civil Litigation Defense
Timothy J O’Connor, Civil Litigation Defense
Paul C. Peterson. Professional Liability Defense
Matthew D. Sloneker, Civil Litigation Defense
Eric J. Steinhoff, Civil Litigation Defense
Katie H. Storms, Workers’ Compensation
Brian A. Wood, Personal Injury General Defense
2023 Minnesota Rising Star:
Brandon D. Meshbesher, Business Litigation
Timothy Jung Presentation at the Annual Minnesota Insurance Law Deskbook CLE Seminar
On April 19th Timothy Jung presented at the annual Minnesota Insurance Law Deskbook continuing legal education seminar regarding Minnesota Workers’ Compensation law with a focus on legal issues that overlap with other areas of practice.
Congratulations to Sean Kelly for joining the State Bar Association of North Dakota
https://www.sband.org/
Office Move
We are excited to announce that the firm has completed it’s office move.
Our new address is:
1900 AT&T Tower
901 Marquette Ave S.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
LJSP Server migration 12/16-12/19 – Access extremely limited
LJSP’s servers will be down during this period while we perform a server migration. The firm’s access to emails will be extremely limited throughout the weekend. If it is urgent to reach someone over the weekend, please call Doug Sievers at 612-308-1337 and he will put you in touch with the appropriate person. Thank you for your understanding.
Timothy Jung presented arguments at the Minnesota Supreme Court
On December 6th Timothy Jung presented arguments at the Minnesota Supreme Court on behalf of a governmental client, concerning interpretation of 2013 amendments to the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act relating to PTSD. As a leader in this developing area of law, this is the 3rd time since the 2013 amendments that Tim has addressed legal questions at Minnesota’s highest court relating to PTSD and workers’ compensation.
Eric Steinhoff, Matt Sloneker, and Brandon Meshbesher Obtained a Victory from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Eric Steinhoff, Matt Sloneker, and Brandon Meshbesher obtained a victory from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The case involved the alleged disclosure of personal financial information of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleged that the information was posted on the Defendant’s website and initiated a lawsuit for invasion of privacy under Wisconsin law. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, holding that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the “publicity” element of her claim. Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a unanimous decision.
2022 MDLA Trial Techniques Seminar School Supplies Drive
For the second year in a row, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson won the award for biggest contribution of school supplies at the 2022 MDLA Trial Techniques Seminar. The combined efforts of all the firms at the MDLA seminar raised over $1,400 and 2 full SUV loads of school supplies which will be going directly to stock a free store for educators just in time for the upcoming school year.
Congratulations Thomas Jensen and Lauren Hoglund for Successfully Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict at a Recent Jury Trial in Washington County District Court
Congratulations to attorneys Thomas Jensen and Lauren Hoglund for successfully obtaining a complete defense verdict for their client at a recent jury trial in Washington County District Court. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant chiropractor breached the standard of care by using excessive force in a chiropractic adjustment, which allegedly caused a vertebral artery dissection and led to a stroke. Plaintiff also claimed that the defendant chiropractors failed to give informed consent about the association between chiropractic adjustments and vertebral artery dissections. Defendants were found not negligent, with the jury confirming that the chiropractor did not act negligently in his care and treatment of Plaintiff and finding that vertebral artery dissections are not a significant risk of neck chiropractic adjustments.
Congratulations to the Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson 2022 Super Lawyers
2022 Minnesota Super Lawyers:
William L. Davidson, Appellate
Mark A. Fredrickson, Personal Injury General Defense
Thomas D. Jensen, Civil Litigation Defense
Patrick J. Larkin, Construction Litigation
Richard A. Lind, Civil Litigation Defense
Paul C. Peterson. Professional Liability Defense – Top 100
Matthew D. Sloneker, Civil Litigation Defense
Eric J. Steinhoff, Civil Litigation Defense
Brian A. Wood, Personal Injury General Defense
2022 Minnesota Rising Stars:
Ryan P. Myers, Employment and Labor
Mark McGrane Joins Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A.
Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. is excited to announce that Mark McGrane has joined the firm as an associate attorney.
Brian Wood and Brandon Meshbesher Successfully Opposed a Petition for Review to the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Brian Wood and Brandon Meshbesher successfully opposed a Petition for Review to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The case involved an individual who was accused of posting Plaintiffs’ photographs, along with sexually suggestive and degrading captions about them, on a members-only fetish website. It was a consolidated appeal from two separate lawsuits brought by eight individual Plaintiffs. We represented the Defendant’s homeowners insurer and intervened in the lawsuits to contest coverage. The insured asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to discovery requests served on behalf of the insurer. In a published decision, Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer in both cases, holding that the Defendant violated policy provisions requiring the insured to cooperate in the investigation and truthfully represent all material facts. Link v. Link, 972 N.W.2d 630 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). The Defendant filed a Petition for Review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court and that petition was denied on May 18, 2022. Link v. Link is an important decision that further defines the rights and obligations of insurers and their insureds in the state of Wisconsin. Link v Link_Published
Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson P.A. is a proud sponsor of the 2022 Federated Challenge. #federatedchallenge
Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson P.A. is proud to stand alongside sponsors from across the country to defend, empower, and ignite potential in our nation’s youth. Imagine the possibilities. #federatedchallenge
Imagine the possibilities — we did.
Brandon Meshbesher Testified Before the Minnesota Senate Civil Law Committee
On March 3, 2022 Brandon Meshbesher testified before the Minnesota Senate Civil Law Committee in support of S.F. No. 3066—a bill that would repeal a Minnesota statute commonly referred to as the “seat belt gag rule.” John Hausladen, President of the Minnesota Trucking Association, also testified in support of the bill. The seat belt gag rule prohibits the admission into evidence of the use, or failure to use, seat belts in motor vehicle accident cases involving personal injuries or property damage. Meshbesher testified the seat belt gag rule has outlived its original justifications and its continued existence harms litigants, undermines the truth seeking function of civil trials, and prevents Minnesota juries from hearing relevant evidence and making informed decisions. The bill received enough votes in the Civil Law Committee and will next be considered by the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee.
Please Join us in Congratulating Brandon Meshbesher and Brian Wood in a Recent Victory at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals
The case involved an individual who was accused of posting Plaintiffs’ photographs, along with sexually suggestive and degrading captions about them, on a members-only fetish website. It was a consolidated appeal from two separate lawsuits brought by eight individual Plaintiffs. We represented the Defendant’s homeowners insurer and intervened in the lawsuits to contest coverage. The insured asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to discovery requests served on behalf of the insurer. We then moved for summary judgment in both cases arguing that invoking the Fifth Amendment violated policy provisions requiring the insured to cooperate in the investigation and truthfully represent all material facts. Both motions were granted and the insured appealed. A three judge panel affirmed the trial courts’ in a unanimous decision. The panel also recommended that the decision for publication in the official reports. The decision contains important statements of law concerning an insured’s duty to cooperate with an insurer’s investigation of a claim or suit and to avoid concealing material information from the insurer. WI Court of Appeals Decision
COVID-19/CORONAVIRUS – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING MANDATORY VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS
A great deal of uncertainty has surrounded employers’ obligations under the OSHA “vaccine or testing” regulation (the “OSHA ETS”) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) interim final rule (the “CMS IFR”) requiring certain health care providers to ensure that its employees are vaccinated for COVID-19. With two recent orders from the U.S. Supreme Court, some of that uncertainty has been removed.
The Supreme Court issued an order on January 13, 2022, staying enforcement of the OSHA ETS. This means that OSHA can no longer enforce the “vaccine or testing” regulation against employers with 100 or more employees (“Large Employers”) that was set to go into effect.
The same day the Supreme Court issued a separate order upholding the CMS IFR. This means that the much smaller subset of Medicare or Medicaid-reimbursed employers will need to take steps to ensure that their employees are vaccinated for COVID-19 in a manner consistent with those regulations.
Employers who are not required to comply with a mandatory vaccination regulation are still entitled to develop and implement mandatory vaccination policies, subject to certain exceptions.
OSHA ETS REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS WITH 100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES ARE STAYED AND LARGE EMPLOYERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MANDATE VACCINES OR REQUIRE TESTING FOR UNVACCINATED EMPLOYEES
On Thursday, January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an order staying enforcement of the OSHA ETS, and sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. This means, at least for the time being, that “Large Employers” who would have been subject to the OSHA ETS (employers with 100 or more employees), will not be subject to the “vaccine or test” requirements of the rule for the foreseeable future. Because the Supreme Court did not invalidate the OSHA ETS outright, it remains possible that the OSHA ETS may be upheld and enforced at some point in the future (or that other requirements will be formally adopted by the normal administrative rule-making process).
Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“MNOSHA”) recently adopted the requirements of the federal OSHA ETS in its own rulemaking issued on January 3, 2022. Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, MNOSHA has suspended enforcement of its requirements pending future developments. See MNOSHA Press Release.
EMPLOYERS OF MEDICAL PROVIDERS GOVERNED BY THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES REMAIN OBLIGATED TO MANDATE VACCINATIONS OF STAFF
For employers subject to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Interim Final Rule (the “CMS IFR”), the Supreme Court issued a separate order on January 13, 2022, that upheld the regulation (by reversing a stay issued by a lower court that applied in some 25 states). On its website, CMS has issued guidance to those certain Medicare or Medicaid reimbursed employers in the healthcare industry who are subject to the CMS IFR (“Healthcare Employers”).
**Please note that the CMS guidance (the “Guidance”) was published on December 28, 2021, before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its order upholding the CMS IFR. The Guidance notes that certain states are not subject to the CMS IFR “at this time.” We believe CMS is now free to enforce its mandatory vaccination regulations in all states—and that this language no longer applies—given the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the CMS IFR.**
To assist Healthcare Employers in understanding the requirements of the CMS IFR, CMS published a PDF that contains general guidance to employers subject to the CMS IFR mandatory vaccination requirement. In summary, Healthcare Employers must ensure, within thirty (30) days following the date of the Guidance (i.e., January 27, 2022), that:
- Policies and procedures are developed and implemented for ensuring that all facility staff, regardless of clinical responsibility or patient or resident contact are vaccinated for COVID-19; and
- 100% of staff have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, or have a pending request for, or have been granted qualifying exemption, or identified as having a temporary delay as recommended by the CDC, the facility is compliant under the rule; or
- Less than 100% of all staff have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, or have a pending request for, or have been granted a qualifying exemption, or identified as having a temporary delay as recommended by the CDC, the facility is non-compliant under the rule. The facility will receive notice of their non-compliance with the 100% standard. A facility that is above 80% and has a plan to achieve a 100% staff vaccination rate within 60 days would not be subject to additional enforcement action. States should work with their CMS location for cases that exceed these thresholds, yet pose a threat to patient health and safety. Facilities that do not meet these parameters could be subject to additional enforcement actions depending on the severity of the deficiency and the type of facility (e.g., plans of correction, civil monetary penalties, denial of payment, termination, etc.).
Healthcare Employers are subject to additional compliance requirements at both the sixty (60) day mark (i.e., February 26, 2022), and the ninety (90) day mark (i.e., March 28, 2022), which are detailed in the Guidance. In short, CMS has indicated that it intends to begin taking enforcement action against Healthcare Providers who are remain less than fully compliant with their employee vaccination obligations on March 28, 2022.
In addition, CMS also published PDFs that cover specific requirements for Healthcare Employers, depending on the particular CMS reimbursement program in which the employer participates, as follows:
- Ambulatory surgical centers (42 C.F.R. § 416.51);
- Hospice care providers (42 C.F.R. § 418.60); C
- Inpatient psychiatric service providers (42 C.F.R. § 441.151);
- Programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly (PACE) (42 C.F.R. § 460.74);
- Hospitals (acute care hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, hospital swing beds, long term care hospitals, children’s hospitals, transplant centers, cancer hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals/inpatient rehabilitation facilities) (42 C.F.R. § 482.42);
- Long-term care facilities (including skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities, generally called nursing homes) (42 C.F.R. § 483.80);
- Intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (42 C.F.R. §§ 483.430; 483.460);
- Home health services (42 C.F.R. § 484.70);
- Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities (42 C.F.R. §§ 485.58; 485.70);
- Critical access hospitals (42 C.F.R. § 485.640);
- Clinics, rehabilitation agencies, and public health agencies as providers of outpatient physical therapy and speech-language pathology services (42 C.F.R. § 485.725);
- Community mental health centers (42 C.F.R. § 485.904);
- Home infusion therapy suppliers (42 C.F.R. § 486.525);
- Rural health clinics/federally qualified health centers (42 C.F.R. § 491.8); and,
- End-stage renal disease facilities (42 C.F.R. § 494.30).
If your organization falls under one of these reimbursement programs, please review the CMS guidance specific to your organization for more information about your specific compliance obligations. If you have questions about your organization’s obligations arising under the CMS IFR, one of the attorneys on the employment team at Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. would be happy to assist you.
EMPLOYERS REMAIN FREE TO IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN MANDATORY VACCINATION OR TESTING POLICIES, SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE MEDICAL OR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS
Although Large Employers not subject to the CMS IFR will not be required by law to ensure their employees are either vaccinated or tested weekly, all employers – regardless of size – remain free to develop and implement policies requiring employees to be fully vaccinated as a condition of their employment. Such policies must contain processes for considering requests for exemptions from the mandatory vaccination requirement on the basis of the employee’s medical history, disability status, or sincerely-held religious belief.
If you have any employment or other questions regarding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as it relates to your employees, please do not hesitate to contact our employment team at Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. by email or phone at (612) 333-3637.
Bill Davidson – Bill.Davidson@lindjensen.com
(612) 746-0147
Susan Stokes – Susan.Stokes@lindjensen.com
(612) 746-0104
Pat Larkin – Pat.Larkin@lindjensen.com
(612) 746-0154
Ryan Myers – Ryan.Myers@lindjensen.com
(612) 746-0157
Molly de la Vega – Molly.delaVega@lindjensen.com
(612) 746-0174
Minnesota Work Comp Presumption For COVID-19 Ended December 31, 2021
This news blast is to remind you that the presumption applicable to COVID and Minnesota workers’ compensation law ended at 11:59 PM on December 31, 2021.
We have previously issued announcements concerning the COVID presumption as contained in Minn. Stat. §176.011, Subd. 15(f). Please check our website for more information.
The presumption that took effect in April 2020, has now ended.
For injury dates from April, 2020, through the end of 2021, an employee is covered by the presumption if that employee worked in one of the listed categories of employment:
- Peace officer as defined by Stat. §626.64, Subd. 1;
- Firefighter;
- Paramedic;
- Nurse, health care worker, corrections officer or security counselor employed by the state or a political subdivision at a corrections, detention or secure treatment facility;
- Emergency medical technician;
- Health care provider, nurse or assistive employee employed in a health care, home care or long-term care setting with direct COVID-19 patient care or ancillary work in COVID-19 patient unit;
- Workers required to provide child care to first responders and healthcare workers under Executive Order 20–02, and Executive Order 20–19.
The employee’s COVID-19 must be confirmed by a positive laboratory test, or if a laboratory test was not available, the employee was diagnosed by a licensed physician, licensed physician assistant, or a licensed advanced practice registered nurse based on employee’s symptoms. A copy of the positive laboratory test or the written diagnosis of the clinician shall be provided to the employer or insurer.
If the statutory provision is satisfied, the employee is presumed to have a compensable occupational disease, unless the presumption is rebutted by the employer or insurer by showing the employment was not a direct cause of the disease. The burden of proof shifts to the defense.
REMAINING MORE LIMITED PRESUMPTION
Because the COVID specific presumption is no longer available for dates of injury after December 31, 2021, an employee may potentially raise a presumption that remains in the statute regarding infectious and communicable disease.
The infectious disease presumption is contained in Minn. Stat. §176.011, Subd. 15 (b). This applies only to certain, listed occupations. It covers employees who contract an infectious or communicable disease in the course and scope of employment, outside of a hospital. If the provisions of this infectious or communicable disease presumption are met, then the injury is compensable unless the employer rebuts the presumption by showing substantial factors. Any substantial factors used to rebut the presumption that are known to the employer and insurer at the time of denial shall be communicated to the employee in that denial of liability.
SUMMARY
Please reach out to us to discuss COVID claims – whether before or after the effective dates of the presumption. Minnesota’s occupational disease statute provides that in general, ordinary diseases of life (note that “ordinary” does not mean the disease isn’t potentially severe or dangerous), such as COVID-19 are not compensable. A disease arises out of employment only if there is a direct, causal connection between the disease and conditions of the work, and the occupational disease is a result of exposure occasioned by the employment. An employer is not liable for compensation for an occupational disease that cannot be traced to the employment as a direct and proximate cause, or for an injury that results from a hazard to which the employee would have been equally exposed outside of employment. Minn. Stat. §176.011, Subd. 15, generally.
These situations require substantial case-by-case analysis at the time compensability is determined, and we look forward to working with you and answering your questions.
Timothy P. Jung – timothy.jung@lindjensen.com
Mark A. Fredrickson – mark.fredrickson@lindjensen.com
Katie H. Storms – katie.storms@lindjensen.com
Molly H. de la Vega – molly.delavega@lindjensen.com
http://www.lindjensen.com
Congratulations to Attorneys Thomas Jensen, Lauren Hoglund and Paralegal Elizabeth Morris
Congratulations to attorneys Thomas Jensen, Lauren Hoglund and Paralegal Elizabeth Morris for successfully obtaining a complete defense verdict for their client at a recent jury trial in Dakota County District Court. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant chiropractor breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose, and continuing to treat with chiropractic adjustment, Plaintiff’s cervical region that included a herniated disc. Defendants were found not negligent, with the jury confirming that the chiropractor did not breach the standard of care or act negligently in his care and treatment of Plaintiff.
Paul Peterson and Matt Sloneker obtained the dismissal of a federal lawsuit alleging civil rights violations and other claims against a Tribal Court-appointed guardian ad litem
Paul Peterson and Matt Sloneker obtained the dismissal of a federal lawsuit alleging civil rights violations and other claims against a Tribal Court-appointed guardian ad litem. The court found that guardians ad litem are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for the performance of their court-appointed duties, and dismissed all claims.
Breaking News – Minnesota Supreme Court Work Comp Case on Medical Cannabis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Kelly is Now Co-Chair of the MDLA New Lawyers Committee
Congratulations to Brandon Meshbesher who was appointed to the MSBA’s Court Rules and Administration Committee
Brandon Meshbesher has been appointed to the Minnesota State Bar Association’s (MSBA) Court Rules and Administration Committee. Committee members are appointed by the MSBA President and have diverse backgrounds with respect to type of practice, practice area, geographic location, and years in practice. The purpose of the committee is to study and recommend changes or comments in matters of court rules, administration, or policies in any subject area except those covered by the Professional Regulation Committee. The Court Rules and Administration Committee also makes recommendations to the MSBA President regarding MSBA nominees to the Supreme Court Advisory Committees on Rules.
New Associate Lauren M. Hoglund Joins Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson
Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson is pleased to welcome new associate Lauren M. Hoglund to the Firm.
Lauren focuses her practice on advising and defending clients in complex litigation in a variety of industries, including insurance defense, medical malpractice and employment law. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of St. Thomas and her Juris Doctor from Mitchell Hamline College of Law.
After graduating from law school, Lauren served as a law clerk for the Honorable David C. Higgs in Minnesota’s Second Judicial District. Then, she clerked for the Honorable Peter Reyes, Tracy Smith, and Randall Slieter at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Lauren also has experience in general commercial litigation and has represented clients in a variety of business disputes.
Timothy Jung is editor of the Workers’ Compensation chapter of the Minnesota Insurance Law Deskbook
Timothy Jung is editor of the Workers’ Compensation chapter of the Minnesota Insurance Law Deskbook. He recently drafted an update for 2021, and that update has now been published and is available at Minnesota Continuing Legal Education. Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education | (mn.gov)
Congratulations to the Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson 2021 Super Lawyers
2021 Minnesota Super Lawyers:
William L. Davidson, Appellate
Mark A. Fredrickson, Personal Injury General Defense
Thomas D. Jensen, Civil Litigation Defense
Patrick J. Larkin, Construction Litigation
Richard A. Lind, Civil Litigation Defense
Paul C. Peterson. Professional Liability Defense – Top 100
Matthew D. Sloneker, Civil Litigation Defense
Eric J. Steinhoff, Civil Litigation Defense
Brian A. Wood, Personal Injury General Defense
2021 Minnesota Rising Stars:
Ryan P. Myers, Employment and Labor
Timothy Jung Presented to League of Minnesota Cities
On May 18th, Timothy Jung presented to the League of Minnesota Cities on application of Minnesota’s Workers’ Compensation treatment parameters, including a discussion of Leuthard v. ISD 912, a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court, in which our client prevailed.
Timothy Jung, Molly de la Vega, and João Medeiros Secured for the Firm’s Client ISD 912 a Favorable Result in a Decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court
Timothy Jung, Molly de la Vega, and João Medeiros secured for the firm’s client a favorable result in a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court, published April 28th. In Leuthard v. Independent School District 912 – Milaca, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the WCCA and reinstated the compensation judge’s Findings and Order denying certain treatment as outside applicable treatment parameters and not reasonable and necessary. This decision preserves the value of Minnesota’s workers’ compensation treatment parameters made effective in 1995. It also supports the key role of the fact finder and reaffirms the long-recognized limited review of the Worker’s Compensation Court of Appeals regarding questions of fact.
A copy of the decision can be found at the Supreme Court website: OPA200893-042821.pdf (mncourts.gov)