Workers

William Mitchell Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 1 Article 8 1980 Workers' Compensation—Intervenors' Right to Reimbursement—Brooks v. A.M.F., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 1979) Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation (1980) "Workers' Compensation—Intervenors' Right to Reimbursement—Brooks v. A.M.F., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 1979)," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol6/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact . © Mitchell Hamline School of Law et al.: Workers' Compensation—Intervenors' Right to Reimbursement—Brooks WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6 The Convery court echoes New York case law in refusing to find a separate cause of action for negligent supervision,57 but it does recognize a cause of action within the limits of reasonable foreseeability against persons with a special relationship to the child.58 Under this analysis, a parent will be "liable for failure to exercise reasonable care, precaution and vigilance" as measured by the child's understanding of the risks of injury and their foreseeability by the parent. 59 Therefore, under the Conveg approach, parents will continue to be immunized for most injuries resulting from daily occurrences, yet the child will be protected from situations involving inherent danger. Although the Romanik court's decision to delay resolution of the parental supervision issue may lead to less confusion in Minnesota than now exists in Michigan and Wisconsin, Minnesota presently has no clear rule to follow. It is hoped that the court will consider the Conveg approach in arriving at a definitive solution. Meanwhile, Romanik evinces the principle that parental instruction sufficiently negligent to constitute an affirmative act endangering a child is outside both exceptions to the abrogation of the parent-child immunity doctrine. Workers' Compensation.-IrrERVENORS' RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT-Brooks v. A.M.F, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 1979). Many Minnesota workers covered by workers' compensation, also 57. See Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35, 47, 324 N.E.2d 338, 344, 364 N.Y.S.2d 859, 868 (1974). 58. See Convery v. Maczka, 163 N.J. Super. at 416, 394 A.2d at 1253. 59. Id. 1. Under the Minnesota workers' compensation law, MINN. STAT. §§ 176.011-.82 (1978 & Supp. 1979), an injured employee is entitled to compensation from the employer's compensation carrier for an injury shown to be work related. See id. § 176.021(1) (1978) ("arising out of and in the course of employment"). Nearly all Minnesota workers are covered under the Minnesota workers' compensation law for work-related illness and injury. See id. § 176.041(1) (Supp. 1979) (excluding employees of railroads engaged in interstate commerce, family farm employees, various other agricultural workers, and certain other occupations from coverage by workers' compensation). In 1973, 38,953 work-related injuries were reported in Minnesota. By 1978, this number had increased to 55,536. See MINNESOTA WORKERS' COMPENSATION STUDY COMMISSION, A REPORT TO THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR 205 (1979) [hereinafter cited as STUDY COMM'N]. Workers' compensation statutes were enacted by state legislatures throughout the nation starting in 1902. See I A. LARSON, THE LAW OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION § 5.20 (1978). Their purpose was to assure speedy compensation by employers to workers for work-related injuries. See, e.g., New York C.R.R. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 201 (1917). By 1920, all but eight states had adopted compensation acts. See I A. LARSON, Supra, § 5.30, Published by Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 1980 1 William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 6, Iss. 1 [1980], Art. 8 CASE NOTES 1980] carry private health insurance.2 Private health insurance policies often exclude coverage for claims compensable by workers' compensation.3 Thus, the private health insurer has an obvious interest in how the proceeds of a compensation award are to be distributed. 4 For this reason, the Minnesota court has long recognized the right of health insurers to intervene for possible reimbursement in workers' compensation proceedings when the insured carries a policy that excludes payment for occupational sickness or injury. 5 at 39. The rapid spread of such statutes was largely a response to obstacles encountered by workers in seeking compensation under common law, which gave employers three defenses against employee claims for liability. One defense gave employers immunity for injuries caused by fellow workers. See, e.g., Foster v. Minnesota C. Ry., 14 Minn. 360, 364 (Gil. 277, 281) (1869). Another defense removed or mitigated employer liability when the employer could show the worker had assumed the risk of incurring work-related injuries. See, e.g., De Greif v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 106 Minn. 15, 19, 118 N.W. 558, 560 (1908). A third defense-contributory negligence-barred recovery against the employer when the worker was partly at fault, however slight. See 1 A. LARSON, supra, § 5.20, at 38; cf. Mathison v. Minneapolis St. Ry., 126 Minn. 286, 295, 148 N.W. 71, 75 (1914) (workers' compensation law provides for recovery without regard to negligence). Seegenerally Asher, The Ortgins of Workmen's Compensation in Minnesota, 44 MINN. HIST. 142 (1974). 2. According to the court in Lemmer v. Batzli Elec. Co., 267 Minn. 8, 125 N.W.2d 434 (1963), "[i]t has become a somewhat common practice for an employee to insure against injury arising outside his employment, thus complementing the protection provided him under the Workmen's Compensation Act." Id. at 18, 125 N.W.2d at 441. 3. See, e.g., Vetsch v. Schwan's Sales Enterprises, 283 N.W.2d 884, 885 (Minn. 1979); Brooks v. A.M.F., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 310, 311 (Minn. 1979). 4. See, e.g., Vetsch v. Schwan's Sales Enterprises, 283 N.W.2d 884, 886 (Minn. 1979) (health insurer not a party to settlement entitled to full reimbursement of money paid on behalf of employee under insurance policy that excluded claims covered by workers' compensation); Brooks v. A.M.F., Inc., 278 N.W.2d at 311 (workers' compensation procedures whereby intervenor, excluded from settlement negotiations, received reimbursement only after proving employee's injuries were work related, held to be inadequate); Repo v. Capitol Elevator Co., 312 Minn. 364, 367-70, 252 N.W.2d 248, 250-51 (1977) (health insurer entitled to reimbursement for benefits paid under policy that excluded coverage of claims compensable under workers' compensation); Tatro v. Hartmann's Store, 295 Minn. 282, 286, 204 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (1973) (denying health insurer's right to intervene after settlement because substantial prejudice could result to employee; (...truncated)