Clabo v. Bor-Son Construction Co.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1994, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mitchell v. Steffen (Minn. 1993)
- Keklah v. Gebert's Floor Coverings (Minn. 1994)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Certiorari was granted to review a decision of the workers’ compensation court of appeals affirming the calculation of the weekly wage of a construction worker.
The employee is a bricklayer in the construction industry. While employed by Bor-Son Construction Company, he sustained a compensable injury for which he received compensation first for temporary total disability and later for temporary partial disability. Within 90 days after he returned to work full-time, he was laid off for lack of work and received monitoring period compensation until he found a job with another employer. The compensation judge calculated employee’s weekly wage in accordance with the formula for the construction industry instead of the 26-week formula for irregular wages, the method used by the employer/insurer when paying benefits. Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 3 (1990). On appeal, the WCCA affirmed under Berry v. Walker Roofing Co., 473 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1991).
The employer/insurer contends the construction industry provision violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. We think not. Here, there is a rational distinction between part-time or irregular employment and the construction industry in which full-time employment is affected by seasonal conditions. Providing a simple method for computing the wage basis in the construction industry as full-time employment, rather than averaging the wages over one-half the year is rational. It would seem the employer/insurer’s challenge to the construction industry provision is more appropriately directed to the legislature for debate and deliberation. See Moes v. City of St. Paul, 402 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Minn. 1987).
Affirmed.
The employee is awarded $400 in attorney fees.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.