The Minnesota Court of Appeals has issued a significant ruling regarding the ability of employers to challenge disability benefit determinations made by the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). In the case of Hubbard County v. James Card (docket number A25-2200), the court reversed a previous decision that dismissed Hubbard County's appeal against PERA's approval of duty-disability benefits for a deputy sheriff. This ruling affects local government employers and their rights under state law.
The court's decision, filed on August 10, 2026, allows Hubbard County to proceed with its challenge against the disability benefits awarded to James Card, a deputy sheriff who applied for PERA benefits. The ruling clarifies the application of amendments made to Minnesota Statutes regarding disability benefits and the definition of who qualifies as a “person” entitled to contest such determinations.
Hubbard County, the relator in this case, sought to appeal a decision made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who ruled that the county was not allowed to challenge the PERA determination due to a 2025 amendment that the ALJ interpreted as retroactive. The case highlights important legal questions about the rights of employers in disability benefit cases and the interpretation of legislative intent in statutory amendments.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Hubbard County and James Card, with the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota also named as a respondent. The dispute arose when Card applied for duty-disability benefits after an injury sustained while on duty as a deputy sheriff. PERA approved Card’s application and notified Hubbard County, stating that the county had the right to petition for a review of the determination.
In October 2024, Hubbard County filed a petition for review, initiating a contested-case hearing before an ALJ. However, in November 2025, the ALJ dismissed the county’s petition, stating that the 2025 legislative amendments to Minnesota Statutes prohibited the county from challenging the determination. The ALJ also ruled that the county did not qualify as a “person” under the statute, which further complicated the county's ability to contest the decision.
The Ruling
The Minnesota Court of Appeals, led by Judge Worke, ruled that the ALJ made errors in both the interpretation of the 2025 amendments and in defining who qualifies as a “person” under the law. The court stated, “The 2025 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 (Supp. 2025) is not retroactive.” This ruling means that the amendments do not apply to cases that were pending before the law was enacted.
Furthermore, the court clarified that under the provisions of the 2024 statute, Hubbard County is indeed considered a “person” and is therefore entitled to challenge the PERA determination. The court emphasized that the ALJ’s conclusion that the county was not a person permitted to challenge a PERA duty-disability determination was incorrect, thereby allowing the county's appeal to proceed.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for local government employers in Minnesota. It reaffirms their right to contest determinations made by PERA regarding disability benefits, ensuring that employers can have a voice in the process. The court's decision also sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of legislative amendments and their applicability to ongoing cases.
As a result of this ruling, Hubbard County will be allowed to proceed with its contested-case hearing, which could potentially lead to a different outcome regarding Card’s disability benefits. The decision underscores the importance of clear legislative intent in statutory amendments and affirms the rights of employers to challenge administrative decisions that affect their operations.
What's Next
Following this decision, Hubbard County will move forward with the contested-case hearing regarding James Card’s disability benefits. There is no indication that this ruling will be appealed further, but it sets a clear legal framework for similar cases in the future. Details regarding any related cases were not available in the court filing.