Cousineau McGuire Chartered | Amendments to the MN Workers' Compensation Laws 2000

AMENDMENTS TO THE MINNESOTA WORKERS'
COMPENSATION LAWS
2000

Prepared by
Lisa M. Alioto
Lisa F. Kinney
Michael D. Barrett
Cousineau McGuire Chartered

Table of Contents:

Introduction
Statutory Changes
Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

There have been numerous revisions to the workers' compensation statutes. Some of these amendments present significant changes to the statutes, while others merely provide clarifying language and have little, if any, effect on a claim.

The amendments to the workers compensation laws have been briefly addressed in the following pages. In addition to a summary of the amendments, the effect of these changes on a workers' compensation claim will be discussed. Please contact our attorneys for a printout of the act.

STATUTORY CHANGES

DAILY WAGE - Minnesota Statute §176.011 Subd. 3:

This subdivision was amended in several different parts. The amendments under this section are effective for dates of injury on or after October 1, 2000.

The first change reflects the addition of clarifying language to the provision regarding the calculation of the daily wage for employees whose wages are irregular or difficult to determine. The clarifying language is found in the following excerpt of this subdivision:

If the amount of the wage received or to be received by the employee in the employment engaged in at the time of injury was irregular or difficult to determine, or if the employment was part time, the daily wage shall be computed by dividing the total amount of wages, vacation pay, and holiday pay the employee actually earned in such employment in the last 26 weeks,.... (additional language is underscored)
This change merely reflects a change in language to clarify how the daily wage is to be calculated. Prior to this statutory amendment, case law already dictated that in addition to an employee's regular wages, vacation pay and holiday pay were to be included in determining an employee's daily wage. See, Frei v. Comfort Heating & Air Conditioning, 42 WCD 207 (WCCA 1989), Ostrander v. Durkee-Atwood, 43 WCD 267 (WCCA 1990). Thus, the effect of this change is simply to codify what already was existing law regarding calculating the daily wage.

The next amendment to this same statute section deletes some of the statute's previous language and adds additional language. The statute now reads,

If the amount of the wage received or to be received by the employee in the employment engaged in at the time of injury was irregular or difficult to determine, or if the employment was part time, the daily wage shall be computed by dividing the total amount of wages, vacation pay, and holiday pay the employee actually earned in such employment in the last 26 weeks, by the total number of days in which (the employee actually performed any of the duties of such employment) such wages, vacation pay, and holiday pay was earned, provided further, that in the case of the construction industry..... (deleted language in parenthetical, underscored language is language added to the statute).
This amendment reflects a deliberate intent to completely change how the number of days in an average weekly wage calculation are to be computed. The amendment now dictates that vacation and holiday days taken during the 26 week period prior to the date of injury are to be included in computing the number of days worked in the 26 week time period prior to the injury. The artificial inflation of the employee's wage that occurs by excluding these days but including such pay, will no longer occur. Thus, the average weekly wage computations will produce a reduced wage as compared to previously.

Prior to this change the statutory language stated that the number of days worked is computed by adding the number of days "the employee actually performed any of the duties of such employment." This meant that if the employee took a week of vacation sometime in the 26 week time period prior to his injury, these days would not be included in the wage calculation.

For example: Employee earned $20,000 in the 26 week period prior to his injury

He actually worked 125 days during this time period

He took 5 days of vacation during this period

Prior to these amendments, for a worker with an irregular wage, his average daily wage would be computed as follows:

20,000/125 = $160 average daily wage
The amendment deletes this clear language. Instead the statute now states that the wages earned shall be divided by the total number of days in which "such wages, vacation pay, and holiday pay was earned,..." This amendment now dictates that instead of adding only the days actually worked, now all days in which wages were earned, including holiday and vacation days, should be included. This has the effect of eliminating the artificial wage inflation that occurrs when holiday and vacation pay are included in the calculation, but holiday and vacation days taken are not included. This effect is shown in the following example, which produces a wage lower than the above example.

For example: Employee earned $20,000 in the 26 week period prior to his injury

He actually worked 125 days during this time period

He took 5 days of vacation during this period

With the amendments, arguably the daily wage for a worker with an irregular wage would now be computed as follows:

20,000/130 = 153.85 average daily wage

As the above examples illustrate, by including the vacation and holiday days taken in the average weekly wage determination, the artificial inflation produced by including the vacation and holiday pay but not the days will no longer occur. As such, the wage will now more accurately reflect the actual average wage earned by an employee. That this was the intended effect of this change is supported by further amendments to this subdivision.

Support for the position that this amendment changes how the average weekly wage is calculated can be found in the Fougner decision. In that case, the employer had argued that if vacation and holiday pay are included in the wage calculation, then the number of such days should also be included. Fougner v. Boise Cascade Corp., 460 NW 2d 1 (Minn. 1990). The Minnesota Supreme Court noted that such an argument is contrary to the plain language of the statute, which clearly only included in the calculation the number days the employee actually performed any of the duties of the employment. The Court went on to state that the employer's argument, ".. seems to be anomaly [sic], that is a question more properly addressed by the legislature." Id. at 2 n. 1.

The Supreme Court in Fougner acknowledged that the statutes' language was clear and only included the number of days actually worked. However, by changing language that is plainly clear and also interpreted by the Supreme Court to be clear, the legislature's change reflects a deliberate decision to amend how the daily wage is calculated. This change overturns the decision handed down in Fougner. Moreover, such a change reflects a fairer approximation of the employee's probable future earning power which has been impaired by the injury, a cited goal of the courts.

That this was the intent of the legislature is also supported by an analysis of the next change in this subdivision. Further down in this subdivision, again some additional language is added to he statute. The following language has been added:

If the employee worked or earned less than a full day's worth of wages, vacation pay, or holiday pay, the total amount earned shall be divided by the corresponding proportion of that day.
This language simply dictates that when computing the number of days worked with pay received, the calculation should reflect the actual portion of time the pay represents. Thus, rather than simply counting a few hours missed in a shift as a full day worked or as a full day off, the calculation must now represent the actual fraction of the day that the employee actually worked. This results in a calculation that more accurately reflects the actual pay an employee receives from the employment.

This change indicates that the legislature is striving to achieve a more accurate wage calculation. As discussed above, eliminating the artificial inflation that occurs when holiday and vacation days are excluded from the wage calculation likewise will result in a wage that more accurately reflects the employee's actual daily wage. To interpret the previously discussed changes to simply reflect a clarification seemingly would produce policies that conflict. The only way to harmonize these changes is through an interpretation of the legislature's intent as now including in the wage determination those days counted as vacation or holiday days.
"EMPLOYEE" - Minnesota Statute §176.011 Subd. 9:

This subdivision was amended in only one section. The amendment under this section is effective for dates of injury on or after August 1, 2000, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §645.02 (no effective date in Act)..

This subdivision pertains to what persons are included under the classification "employee." There was only one minor change in this section. Subsection 10 includes within the definition of "employee" a voluntary uncompensated worker participating in a program established by a local social services agency. Under subsection 10, the following language was added:

For purposes of this clause, "local social services agency" means any agency established under section 393.01.
This additional language simply defines what is meant by the term "local social service agency" as used earlier in this subsection. Each county has a "local social services agency" set up by the state.
AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE - Minnesota Statute §176.011 Subd. 20:

The language in this subdivision was amended in a few minor parts. The amendments under this section are effective for dates of injury on or after August 1, 2000, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §645.02.

The changes in this subdivision involve the determination of the statewide average weekly wage. Now when determining the statewide average weekly wage, the wages reported on the tax rolls for the employer (rather than the contribution reports) will be used. All "covered" employee's wages, rather than "insured" employee's wages, are to now to be included.
THIRD PARTY LIABILITY - Minnesota Statute §176.061 Subds. 3, 5, 7, 10:

Additional language was added to these subdivisions. These amendments are effective on August 1, 2000. Whether they can be applied to existing causes of action will depend upon whether they are considered codifications of existing law.

Subdivision 3 involves subrogation. This subdivision now states,

The employer, or the attorney general on behalf of the special compensation fund, may bring legal proceedings against the party and recover the aggregate amount of benefits payable to or on behalf of the employee or the employee's dependents, regardless of whether such benefits are recoverable by the employee or the employee's dependents at common law or by statute together with costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney's fees of the action.
This additional statutory language is found in all of the above-referenced subdivisions and applies to all indemnity and medical expenses. It also applies in situations where the award in civil court is given prior to the payment of workers' compensation benefits, i.e. cumulative benefits.

The addition of this language arguably expands the scope of benefits an employer and insurer may now recover. Historically, there was not any analogous counterpart in common law or by statute for many of the benefits provided under the workers' compensation act. For instance, there was no analogous counterpart in common law for permanent partial disability benefits, retraining benefits, or rehabilitation benefits paid by an insurer. Thus, in third party liability actions, employers/insurers have often not been able to recover payments to the employee for such benefits. With the enactment of this amendment, however, such benefits are now clearly recoverable.

These changes do leave some ambiguity, though, regarding exactly how wide open the door is for the recovery of benefits,"regardless of whether such benefits are recoverable by the employee...." While the intent of the legislature clearly was to allow for the recovery of benefits such as those described above, whether this amendment now also allows an employer to recover in cases where limiting statutes have precluded the employee from recovering is another issue. For instance, if an employee was barred from filing a claim due to the statute of limitations, arguably this amendment could allow the employer of such an employee to still file an action to recover the benefits it has paid, despite the fact that the employee could not file any action against the third party. While this was not the original intent of the legislature, the language of the amendment arguably leaves room for such a broad interpretation by the courts.
RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION - Minnesota Statute §176.061 Subd. 11

This amendment involves the addition of an entirely new subsection. Due to the length of the provision, please contact our attorneys for a printout of the act. The effective date for this amendment is August 1, 2000.

This amendment dictates that any non-employer third party who is liable has a right of contribution against the employer. However, this is not just a codification of Lambertson. Rather, the amendment dictates that the contribution is the lesser of the employer's proportional share of the damages or the net amount the employer recovers under the formula (as opposed to the workers' compensation benefits paid/payable under the Lambertson case).

Subdivision 11 also codifies the "walk and waive" concept. The employer can now avoid a contribution claim by waiving the right to recover workers' compensation benefits paid and payable prior to the selection of the jury.

Lastly, this amendment also provides the employee with the right to present the waived damages. Following the verdict, the court will then deduct any awarded damages that are duplicative of workers' compensation benefits paid or payable.
STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES; LIENS - Minnesota Statute §176.081 subd. 1

This amendment involves the addition of an entirely new subsection, subsection g. Due to the length of the subsection, please contact our attorneys for a printout of the Act. This amendment is effective for written notices of claims for legal services that were filed on or after August 1, 2000.

Essentially this provision states that an attorney must file a statement of attorney fees within 12 months of the date that the attorney submitted the written notice of claims for legal services or disbursements to the employer or insurer. However, if the attorney fails to do this, a renewed notice of the lien may be sent. If 12 months have elapsed since the last notice of a lien and a statement of attorney fees has not been filed, the insurer must give the attorney 30 days written notice of a pending release of withheld monies to the employee. If the attorney files a statement of attorney fees within this period, the insurer cannot release the withheld money to the employee.
TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY - Minnesota Statute §176.101 subd. 1

This section pertains to some significant changes regarding temporary total disability benefits. These amendments are effective for dates of injury on or after October 1, 2000.

The maximum weekly compensation rate has been changed from $615.00 to $750.00. The minimum weekly compensation rate has been raised from $104.00 to $130 per week. These changes potentially could greatly increase the exposure in a claim for indemnity benefits.

In addition to the maximum and minimum rate changes, the amendments also eliminate some language in subdivision 1(e)(1). It now states:

(1) if temporary total disability compensation ceased because the employee returned to work, it may be recommenced if the employee is laid off or terminated for reasons other than misconduct (within one year after returning to work) if the layoff or termination occurs prior to 90 days after the employee has reached maximum medical improvement....(Deleted language in parentheticals)

The effect of deleting this language is that if an employee is laid off or terminated for reasons other than misconduct even after one year after returning to work, the employee may seek to have temporary total disability benefits recommenced. As apparent from this change, this amendment creates a potential for increased exposure.

This amendment also has the effect of expanding the misconduct defense. Now, the statute reads that if an employee is fired for misconduct after one year (whereas before there was a 1 year limit) since returning to work, the employee's temporary total disability compensation will not be recommenced.

Last, the legislature has added a subsection to this subdivision. It reads,

(m) Once an employee has been paid 52 weeks of temporary total compensation, the employer or insurer must notify the employee in writing of the 104 week limitation on payment of temporary total compensation. A copy of this notice must also be filed with the department.
This amendment creates an additional notice and filing requirement for employers and insurers.

PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY - Minnesota Statute §176.101 subd. 2a

This section pertains to some very significant changes to the permanent partial disability schedule. These changes are effective for dates of injuries on or after October 1, 2000.

The following indicates the schedule amendments recently enacted.

Impairment rating	Amount
{percent}
(0 - 25)		($75,000)
0 - 5		$75,000
6-10		$80,000
11-15		$85,000
16-20		$90,000
21-25		$95.000
26-30		$100,000 ( 80,000)
31-35		$110,000 ( 85,000)
36-40		$120.000 ( 90,000)
41-45		$130,000 ( 95,000)
46-50		$140,000 (100,000)
51-55		$165,000 (120,000)
56-60		$190,000 (140,000)
61-65		$215,000 (160,000)
66-70		$240,000 (180,000)
71-75		$265,000 (200,000)
76-80		$315,000 (240,000)
81-85		$365,000 (280,000)
86-90		$415,000 (320,000)
91-95		$465,000 (360,000)
96-100		$515,000 (400,000)

(Deleted percentages and amounts in parentheticals).

Apparent from this schedule is that the legislature has broken down the 0 - 25% ratings into 5 different levels of payment calculation. In addition, the amount to be multiplied by the impairment rating has been significantly increased. The impact of these changes greatly increases the potential exposure in a case involving permanent disabilities.

In addition, the following language has been added to subsection b:

(b) ... If the employee requests payment in a lump sum, then the compensation must be paid within 30 days. This lump sum payment may be discounted to the present value calculated up to a maximum five percent basis. If the employee does not choose to receive the compensation in a lump sum, then, the compensation is payable in installments...... (underscored language indicates that changes added)

While previously the employee could request a lump sum payment rather than interval payments, this amendment now dictates that an employer must pay the employee in a lump sum if so requested. It should be noted that if the employee does choose to be paid in one lump sum, the payment may be discounted to present value. Again, these changes are effective for dates of injury on or after October 1, 2000.

CESSATION OF BENEFITS; RETIREMENT - Minnesota Statute §176.101 subd. 8

This subdivision now contains a provision allowing for an additional method of establishing a presumption of retirement. These changes are effective for dates of injury on or after October 1, 2000.

The subdivision now reads, in part,

(This presumption is) For injuries occurring after October 1, 2000, an employee who receives any other service-based government retirement pension is presumed retired from the labor market. The term "service- based government retirement pension" does not include disability-based government pensions. These presumptions are rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. (Deleted language in parenthesis, new language underscored).
These changes now statutorily provide an additional method of establishing the presumption of retirement. If an employee is receiving social security old age and survivors insurance retirement benefits or any other service-based government retirement pension other than disability-based government pensions, a presumption of retirement is established.
RETRAINING - Minnesota Statute 176.102 subd. 11

This section contains some changes regarding retraining benefits. The changes are effective for dates of injury on or after October 1, 2000. Due to the length of this provision, please contact our attorneys for a copy of the Act.

The amendments now give an employee an additional year to file a request for retraining. The employee now has to file a request for retraining before 156 weeks (rather than 104 weeks) of any combination of temporary total and/or temporary partial disability benefits have been paid. It is important to note that this requirement is more than just a notice provision. It also is a limiting provision which bars retraining claims unless the employee actually seeks approval of an actual retraining plan within the requisite time period, i.e. a timely request for retraining must still include a detailed retraining plan. See, Davidson v. Northshore Manufacturing, File No. 470-58-2263 (WCCA Nov. 22, 1999). Moreover, the employer must now notify the employee in writing of the 156 (instead of 104) week limitation for filing a request for retraining with the commissioner.
REQUEST FOR HEARING - Minnesota Statute §176.106 subd. 7

This section contains some changes regarding requests for hearings. The changes involve the deletion of some language which has the effect of increasing the scope of decisions for which a hearing may be requested. The changes are effective August 1, 2000.

The changes in the statute are as follows:

Any party aggrieved by the decision of the commissioner's designee may request a formal hearing....no later than 30 days after the decision (; provided, however, that the commissioner shall review a decision of the commissioner's designee regarding a claim for a medical benefit of $1,500 or less and the commissioner's decision shall be final.) Requests (on other issues) shall be referred to the office of administrative hearings for a de novo hearing before a compensation judge. (Deleted language in parenthesis).
By deleting some of the language in this subdivision, parties to decisions regarding medical benefits of $1,500 or less are now able to request a formal hearing. Prior to these changes, the commissioner would review the decision and the commissioner's decision would be final, without having any formal hearing. Thus, the scope of decisions that are now potentially subject to a formal hearing has increased.
DEPENDENCY BENEFITS - Minnesota Statute §176.111 subd. 5

The change in this subdivision now imputes a minimum for dependency benefits. This change is effective for dates of injury on or after April 28, 2000.

Added to subdivision 5, is the following language:

The minimum amount of dependency compensation that must be paid to persons entitled thereto is $60,000.
Thus, where previously there was no minimum on dependency benefits, there is now a minimum of $60,000.
BURIAL EXPENSES - Minnesota Statute §176.111 subd. 18

The change in this subdivision now increases the amount payable for burial expenses. This amendment is effective for dates of injury on or after April 28, 2000.

Instead of the previous cap of $7,500, the employer/insurer shall pay the burial expenses resulting from a fatal injury arising out of and in the course of employment up to $15,000.
PAYMENTS TO ESTATE - Minnesota Statute §176.111 subd. 22

This amendment created an entirely new subdivision regarding death benefits. This new subdivision applies to dates of injury on or after April 28, 2000.

The new subdivision is as follows:

Subd. 22. [PAYMENTS TO ESTATE; DEATH OF EMPLOYEE.] In every case of death of an employee resulting from personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment where there are no persons entitled to monetary benefits of dependency compensation, the employer shall pay to the estate of the deceased employee the sum of $60,000.
The addition of this subdivision greatly increases the liability of employers/insurers in cases where there are no persons entitled to dependency benefits. The employer/insurer is now required to pay $60,000 to the deceased's estate.

Related to this amendment, is the repeal of Minn. Statute §176.129 subd 2. This statute section held that in cases where an employee is fatally injured and there are no persons entitled to monetary dependency benefits, the employer shall pay to the commissioner $25,000 to the special compensation fund. It also held that where some dependency benefits are paid but do not amount up to $25,000 of benefits, the employer must pay the commissioner the difference between the amounts actually paid and $25,000, with the employer paying the commissioner less than $5,000 ever. This subdivision has been repealed in whole, no longer requiring the employer to make these payments to the special compensation fund. This repeal is effective April 28, 2000.
PAYMENTS TO FUND; INJURY - Minnesota Statute §176.129 subd. 3

The statutory changes to this subdivision merely places dates on when payment and a completed assessment form are to be submitted to the commissioner. These changes are effective August 1, 2000.

The statutory change is as follows:

.... Payment shall be made (as soon as the amount is determined and approved by) and the completed assessment form shall be submitted to the commissioner no later than April 1 and August 15 of the same calendar year. (Deleted language in parenthesis; added language underscored).
This change is rather simple. Now rather than submitting the payment as soon as it is determined and approved by the commissioner, the payment, along with the assessment form, now has set submission deadlines.
PAYMENTS TO FUND - REPORTING; ASSESSMENT - Minnesota Statute §176.129 subd. 4

This statutory change involves the special compensation fund and the time of injury. It is effective August 1, 2000.

This section of subdivision 4 now states:

.....Payments made for personal injuries that occurred prior to June 1, 1971, shall be reported to the special compensation fund but shall not be assessed (at the rate in effect on the date of occurrence). (Deleted language in parenthesis, added language underscored).
As a result of these changes, while payments for personal injuries that occurred prior to June 1, 1971 are still to be reported to the Fund, additional assessments will not be due for such injuries.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO GIVE TO INJURED WORKER - Minnesota Statute §176.231 subd. 2

This statutory amendment now places an additional duty on the employer. This change is effective August 1, 2000.

The statute has added the following language to subd. 2:

The employer must give the employee the "Minnesota Workers' Compensation System Employee Information Sheet" at the time the employee is given a copy of the first report of injury.
This provision is self-explanatory. The Information Sheet will be created by the State of Minnesota, Department of Labor and Industry.
STATE COMPENSATION REVOLVING FUND - Minnesota Statute §176.611 subd. 2a

This statutory amendment is effective August 1, 2000. Due to the length of the provision, please contact our attorneys for a printout of the act.

The changes eliminate the limiting language regarding the use of the separate account within the state compensation revolving fund. The changes now indicate that the account can be used under broader circumstances.
LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; ASSIGNED RISK PLAN SURPLUS - Sections 23-28

This amendment seems to be one of the most significant topics of this round of additions/amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act. Due to the length of the provision, please contact our attorneys for a printout of the act. These provisions are effective April 28, 2000.

In essence, the legislature would like to see the fairly significant surplus in the assigned risk plan to be put to use and benefit of all employers in the State of Minnesota who pay assessments.

After defining "excess surplus," the provision indicates that on or before July 10, 2000, the Commissioner of Commerce shall certify to the Commissioner of Finance the total amount of the surplus. Also on or before July 10, 2000, $325,000,000 must be directly transferred to a separate "excess surplus account" within the special compensation fund to be managed by the state board of investments. The principal portion of this account is to be for the settlement of liabilities of the second injury and supplementary benefits programs. Up to $1,000,000 in the excess surplus account may be applied to administrative costs incurred by these programs.

If these funds are transferred in the manner provided above by January 1, 2001, the rate assessed for employers under §176.129 shall be reduced by at least 30% from the rate in effect on January 1, 2000. However, it should be kept in mind that under section 25, the changes in the maximum/minimum compensation rates, the definition of average weekly wage, and the permanent partial disability schedule (amendments to sections §176.011, 176.101 subd.1, and subd. 2a), are inextricably linked to the success of setting up the "excess surplus account" and its successful management. If there is a court adjudication determining that the "excess surplus account" is invalid, or that the funds in that account are misused, the provisions of §176.011 concerning the calculation of the average weekly wage, the maximum/minimum compensation rates and the new permanent partial disability schedule will revert back to its previously enacted language and reinstated effective 90 days following the occurrence of either of these events.

CONCLUSION

As can be seen from the analysis above, the statutory changes are many and varied. Some have essentially no effect on the value of a claim, while others can greatly increase or decrease the alue of a claim. Some changes merely reflect codification of previous case law or clarify the previous law, while others entirely change the existing law. Each change, however, will have some effect on handling workers' compensation cases.

Keep in mind that these amendments have different effective dates. While some of the changes are already in effect, other may not be in effect until August 1 or for dates of injury on or after October 1, 2000. These effective dates are noted in each discussion of the particular statutory changes for your convenience.

Jump to Top | Topic List | Home

Lisa F. Kinney
Born Wausau, Wisconsin, November 20, 1962; admitted to bar, 1989, Minnesota; 1997, Wisconsin; 1998, Michigan. Education: B.S., University of Wisconsin, Madison, with honors, 1985; J.D., Hamline University, 1989. Staff attorney for Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, 1989-1990. Member: Minnesota State Bar Association; Hennepin County Bar Association; American Bar Association; Minnesota Women Lawyers' Association; Wisconsin State Bar Association; Michigan State Bar Association.
Kinney

direct dial number: (906)932-0726
e-mail: lisakinney@chartermi.net

   Michael D. Barrett
   Michael D. Barrett has been practicing liability insurance defense since 1987. His areas of experience include workers' compensation subrogation, personal injury defense and coverage-related issues such as no-fault automobile insurance. Mike received his B.S., cum laude, from theUniversity of Minnesota, where he was a member of the Gamma Sigma Delta Honor Society. He attained his J.D., cum laude, from William Mitchell College of Law. He was admitted to the Minnesota bar and the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in 1987. Mike has served as a speaker at many client seminars. He is a qualified mediator and is listed on the Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 14 Neutral Roster. He is a member of the Hennepin County Bar Association, the Minnesota State Bar Association and the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association.
   Mike has been married since 1982 and lives in Orono with his wife Dana and their children, Lauren and Matthew. Mike is active in a number of civic organizations such as the Casco Point Association, in which he currently serves as president. In the past he has served as special deputy of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. In his spare time, Mike enjoys woodworking.
Barrett

direct dial number: (612) 525-6920
e-mail: mdb@cousineaulaw.com

Site Map