WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Presumption of retirement

Simonson v. Douglas County, 19 N.W.3d 447 (Minn. 2025)

The facts: Dawn Simonson suffered a lower back injury in 1996, at the age of 40, while working as a histologist for Douglas County. In 1999, the parties settled her workers’ compensation claims, and Simonson was deemed permanently and totally disabled retroactive to the date of her injury. In 2023, after she turned 67, the county discontinued her monthly $1,282.52 benefit based on the statutory presumption of retirement. Simonson’s only other source of income was $815 in monthly Social Security retirement benefits.

The type of case: Simonson filed a claim petition asserting that she was still entitled to permanent total disability (PTD) benefits on the basis that she could rebut the retirement presumption.

The issues: The Minnesota Supreme Court clarified the proper test in determining whether a retirement presumption has been rebutted (disproved by evidence or argument) in a PTD case.

The court’s ruling: The Minnesota Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court and ruled that when assessing whether the retirement presumption has been rebutted under Minnesota law, workers’ compensation courts must analyze whether the employee would have retired at that age regardless of the disability. The burden falls on the employee to prove this by a preponderance of the evidence, which is to demonstrate that their claim is more likely true than not true. Evidence may include:

• The availability of the type of work the employee was performing.
• The presence or adequacy of a pension plan or other retirement arrangements.
• The employee’s age and work history.
• The employee’s willingness to forgo Social Security benefits if suitable work were available.

No single factor determines the outcome, rather judges should consider the strength of each factor and assess how they interact with each other in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.

What this means for cities: When discontinuing disability benefits based on the retirement presumption, cities should be prepared for a case-specific inquiry. Employees can rebut the presumption with evidence, and each situation will require careful evaluation.

SECTION 1983
Excessive force

Barnes v. Felix, 145 S. Ct. 1353 (2025)

The facts: Officer Roberto Felix, Jr., of Houston, Texas, pulled over Ashtian Barnes for suspected toll violations. Felix ordered Barnes to exit the vehicle, but Barnes began to drive away. As the car started moving, Felix jumped onto the doorsill and fired two shots into the vehicle. Barnes was fatally hit but managed to stop the car. About five seconds passed between when the vehicle began to move and when it came to a stop. Two seconds passed between Felix stepping on the doorsill and the moment he fired the first shot.

The type of case: Barnes’ mother sued the officer, alleging that he violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.

The issues: The District Court granted summary judgment (a decision made by a court without a full trial) for the officer, applying the “moment-of-threat” rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that the rule requires asking only whether an officer was “in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in [his] use of deadly force.” Under the rule, events leading up to the shooting are irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed whether courts may apply the moment-of-threat rule in resolving Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims.

The court’s ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the moment-of-threat rule improperly limits the required “totality of the circumstances” analysis that should be used in excessive- force claims. The court noted that the appropriate test examines whether the force was justified from “the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” taking into account both individual and government interests. The court ruled that the totality-of-the-circumstances test is not time restricted to the precise moment the shooting occurred. However, it did not address whether an officer’s own role in creating a dangerous situation factors into the reasonableness analysis.

What this means for cities: Officers should be aware that excessive use-of-force cases will be evaluated based on all the circumstances of a situation. There is no clear and objective legal rule for determining when force becomes excessive.

MINNESOTA DATA PRACTICES
Release of active criminal investigative data

Alpha News v. City of Detroit Lakes, 20 N.W.3d 627 (Minn. App. 2025)

The facts: Alpha News sought police body-worn and dash camera footage related to an ongoing criminal investigation of former Minnesota state Sen. Nicole Mitchell, who was a sitting senator at the time of the incident. Mitchell, who has since resigned after being convicted of first-degree burglary, was the subject of the requested data, which are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7. According to Alpha News, information in the criminal complaint conflicted with public statements made by Mitchell and her attorney in the days following her arrest. Alpha News submitted a formal request for the footage to the Detroit Lakes Police Department. The department denied the request.

The type of case: Under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, a court may release protected investigative data if the public benefit outweighs any harm to the public, the city, or the person identified in the data. In its complaint, Alpha News stated the “camera footage … could corroborate or refute the criminal complaint and/or public statements by Sen. Mitchell,” and that the public benefit in knowing the truth was substantial. The city took no position on whether the data should be released but asked the district court to articulate its reasoning if it authorized release, to avoid being overwhelmed by similar requests in the future. The district denied Alpha News’ motion for the release of the data, ruling the rights of an accused during an active criminal case outweighed the public’s interest in accessing the footage before trial.

The issues: The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered how to interpret “benefit … of the public” under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act when determining whether to release active investigative data.

The court’s ruling: In reviewing whether the district court properly denied Alpha News’ request, the Court of Appeals defined the phrase “benefit … to the public” to mean “that which has a helpful or useful effect on the community or people as a whole, or that which otherwise promotes the well-being of the community or people as a whole.” It ruled that under this definition, the body-camera footage would benefit the public and it was unclear whether the district court had properly weighed that benefit against potential harm. The Court of Appeals, sent the case back to the district court to analyze the data using the new benefit to the public definition.

What this means for cities: Cities should continue to treat investigative data as nonpublic but should keep in mind that the courts will take a broad view of public benefit when deciding to release such data.

Written by Kyle Hartnett, assistant research manager with the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact: [email protected] or (651) 215-4084.