Noga v. Minn. Vikings Football Club
931 N.W.2d 801 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's provision of minor medical care, such as over-the-counter painkillers for immediate symptoms, does not constitute a 'proceeding' that satisfies the workers' compensation statute of limitations for a later-diagnosed, cumulative trauma injury unless the employer had a 'conscious sense of obligation' or awareness of its potential liability for that specific latent injury at the time the care was provided.
Facts:
- Alapati Noga was a defensive lineman for the Minnesota Vikings from 1988 to 1992, known for a 'violent' head-first style of playing.
- During his time with the Vikings, Noga frequently sustained hits to the head and experienced symptoms like headaches and wooziness.
- When Noga reported these symptoms to team trainers and doctors, they would dispense Advil and Tylenol.
- Noga testified that he was encouraged to 'fight through it' and consequently downplayed the extent of his head injuries to team staff.
- Noga's employment with the Vikings ended on December 1, 1992.
- In a 2004 medical report related to a separate orthopedic injury claim, Noga's doctor noted Noga's history of 'Blackout episodes from concussions' and 'Headaches episodes, from football injuries,' and this report was provided to the Vikings.
- In 2011, a neuropsychological evaluation diagnosed Noga with dementia, citing multiple head traumas as an important factor.
- Following a 2014 evaluation, Dr. Thomas Misukanis diagnosed Noga with Major Neurocognitive Impairment (dementia), opining that concussions from his professional football career were a significantly contributing factor.
Procedural Posture:
- Alapati Noga filed a claim petition for workers' compensation benefits against the Minnesota Vikings Football Club in January 2015.
- A compensation judge found that Noga sustained a compensable Gillette injury and that his claim was not barred by notice or statute of limitations requirements.
- The Minnesota Vikings, as appellant, appealed to the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA).
- The WCCA vacated the compensation judge's findings and remanded the case for further proceedings on the issues of the Gillette injury, notice, and the statute of limitations.
- On remand, the compensation judge again found in favor of Noga, the employee.
- The Minnesota Vikings again appealed to the WCCA, which affirmed the compensation judge's decision in a 3-2 split.
- The Minnesota Vikings, as appellant, sought review by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's provision of over-the-counter painkillers for an employee's immediate symptoms of headaches constitute a 'proceeding' under Minn. Stat. § 176.151 that satisfies the statute of limitations for a later-diagnosed cumulative trauma (Gillette) injury of dementia?
Opinions:
Majority - Hudson, J.
No. An employer's provision of minor medical care for an employee's immediate symptoms does not constitute a 'proceeding' under Minn. Stat. § 176.151 that satisfies the statute of limitations for a later-diagnosed cumulative trauma injury. The court reasoned that a 'proceeding' which tolls or satisfies the statute requires the employer to have a 'conscious sense of obligation' for the injury in question. Providing over-the-counter painkillers for headaches between 1988-1992 did not demonstrate the Vikings' acceptance of liability for Noga's much later-diagnosed dementia. The court emphasized that the medical community's understanding of the long-term neurological consequences of head trauma was not developed at that time, so the Vikings could not have known or been aware of their potential liability for Noga's future dementia. This situation is distinct from an employer paying significant medical bills for a known injury, which could lull an employee into not filing a formal claim. The court concluded that the care provided was for Noga's immediate symptoms (headaches), not an acceptance of responsibility for the latent Gillette injury (dementia).
Analysis:
This decision narrows the application of the 'proceeding' exception to the workers' compensation statute of limitations, particularly for latent, cumulative trauma (Gillette) injuries. The ruling clarifies that the employer's action must be linked to a conscious awareness of liability for the specific, ultimate injury being claimed, not just its early, minor symptoms. This creates a higher evidentiary bar for employees in similar situations, as they cannot rely on an employer's provision of minor, early-stage care to toll the statute for a condition that was not understood or diagnosed until many years later. The case highlights the challenges of fitting claims for long-latency occupational diseases, like dementia from head trauma, into a statutory framework designed for more immediate and obvious injuries.
