During the 2023 Minnesota legislative session, buried in the changes to the workers’ compensation statute, the state legislature commissioned a new study. This legislation “[r]equires the commissioner of DLI (Department of Labor and Industry) to conduct a study to identify systemic or regulatory changes to improve the experience and outcomes of employees with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).” This provision seems unremarkable, focusing primarily on workers’ compensation housekeeping. However, the careful phrasing, “improve the experience and outcomes,” hides the study’s true purpose. The PTSD compensation framework in Minnesota is fundamentally broken. This is not because the system is not creating positive outcomes for employees with PTSD. In a sense, it is because the system is too efficient at producing those outcomes.

The Minnesota PTSD treatment programs adopted for first responders have unintentionally created a system that places emphasis on processes and not on people. Recovery, which should always be a primary goal of a compensation or disability assistance program, is now secondary to payment. The ease of access to payment has disincentivized recovery benchmarks and efforts to aid first responders with PTSD to return to the work force. There are several flaws in the current Minnesota system that should be revised with this goal in mind. There are also several additions based on the systems put in place by other states and the federal government that could prove to be beneficial in Minnesota. Above all, this system should not be allowed to remain in place as is, incurring higher and higher costs for public employers until the only feasible option is rolling back compensability for PTSD.

This system must be reexamined, now and in the future. Here, the examination will begin with background information and a summary of the system of applying for benefits as it existed in the leadup to 2020. It will then explain how decisions are made on whether benefits will be awarded. The explanations that have been put forward as to why benefit applications increased dramatically will be discussed, followed by the policy implications of the increase in applications. Comparative state and federal statutes will then be analyzed. Finally, future policy considerations and potential model legislation will be discussed.