Public safety workers dedicate their careers to protecting our communities. When they go to work, they don’t always step into clearly separated “safe” and “dangerous” moments. If they suffer serious injuries on the job, the retirement systems built to support them must honor that sacrifice.
A recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision highlights why that full picture matters when reviewing duty disability claims under the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA).
The case involved former Metropolitan Airports Commission Police Officer Shana Stoler, an Explosive Detection Canine Officer. The Court of Appeals reversed PERA’s denial of duty disability benefits, finding that a full training exercise can’t be chopped into isolated moments to deny coverage.
At Meshbesher & Spence, we regularly help injured public safety workers and their families navigate PERA disability claims and appeals, including cases where benefits have been denied or limited. If you have questions about a PERA duty disability decision or want to better understand your options, our team can walk you through what comes next. You can reach us at (612) 339-9121 or send a message online to discuss your situation.
The Case of Officer Shana Stoler
Officer Shana Stoler served as a police officer with the Metropolitan Airports Commission for over 19 years. In her most recent role, she worked as an Explosive Detection Canine Officer alongside her canine partner. Her daily tasks included proactive terminal searches, cargo screening, and regular training drills using live explosive materials.
During a mandatory training session at a parking lot near the airport, an instructor hid live explosives inside various pieces of luggage along a course. After completing the detection portion of the drill, Officer Stoler and her team began cleaning up the site. Under department rules, a training session does not end until every item is accounted for, the explosives are locked back in the airport bunker, and the keys are secured.
While loading non-explosive suitcases into a trailer as part of this cleanup process, Officer Stoler struck her head on the trailer frame. The impact caused a severe traumatic brain injury. The lingering effects left her dealing with:
- Constant brain fog
- Memory difficulties
- Ongoing physical pain
These symptoms impacted her daily life and prevented her from driving long distances, working full-time, or continuing her career as a canine officer. Faced with these physical limitations, she had to leave the job she loved and apply for disability options through the PERA Police and Fire Plan.
The Battle Over “Inherently Dangerous” Duties
Minnesotans who qualify for the PERA Police and Fire Plan can apply for two different types of disability benefits if an injury prevents them from working for at least a year:
- Duty disability benefits apply when an injury happens as a direct result of inherently dangerous duties tied to law enforcement or firefighting.
- Regular disability benefits apply when the injury does not meet that standard.
The difference between the two is significant. Duty disability benefits typically provide a higher monthly payment that is not taxed until age 55. They also include access to health insurance coverage through the employer under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. Regular disability benefits, by contrast, are taxable and do not include the same health coverage.
While PERA’s medical advisor agreed that Officer Stoler was completely disabled, the PERA staff denied her request for duty disability benefits. They chose to grant her regular disability instead.
PERA admitted that explosive detection training is inherently dangerous. However, they argued that at the exact second of her injury, she was merely lifting empty suitcases into a trailer. Because lifting a regular suitcase is not dangerous on its own, PERA claimed she did not qualify for the higher tier of benefits.
PERA disability cases are not always straightforward. As this decision shows, how a job duty is defined can make a major difference in the outcome of a claim. When benefits are denied, it often takes persistence and a clear presentation of the full record to get a fair review.
If you have questions about a PERA disability claim or a denial, you can contact us at (612) 339-9121 or online to discuss your situation.
Three Denials Before the Courts Finally Stepped In
Officer Stoler asked PERA to reconsider its decision. That request was denied. PERA’s executive director agreed with the original determination and continued to focus on separating the injury moment from the larger training exercise.
The case then moved to a formal evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge at the Court of Administrative Hearings.
After reviewing testimony and evidence, the judge reached a different conclusion. The judge found that Officer Stoler’s injury did meet the standard for duty disability benefits and recommended approval of her claim.
Even with that recommendation, PERA’s Board of Trustees again denied the application. For a third time, the focus remained on isolating the exact action being performed at the moment of injury.
That final denial led to an appeal before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Partner Sam Steward, who focuses her practice on PERA disability, workers’ compensation, and injury claims involving first responders, represented Officer Stoler throughout the disability and appeals process.
“My primary goal is to guide clients through the workers’ compensation system, so they can put their health first.”
– Sam Steward | Partner at Meshbesher & Spence
What the Minnesota Court of Appeals Clarified
The main issue before the Court was whether PERA can break a continuous training exercise into smaller pieces when deciding if an injury occurred during an inherently dangerous duty.
The Court said no.
Instead, the Court looked at the training exercise as a whole. Officer Stoler was not performing unrelated tasks in isolation. She was actively participating in a coordinated explosives detection training designed to simulate real-world law enforcement conditions.
The Court also noted that cleanup and accountability tasks were not separate from the training. By separating those steps, PERA had narrowed the focus too far.
The Court found that the full record supported one clear conclusion: Officer Stoler was injured while participating in inherently dangerous duties specific to peace officers. Because of that, PERA’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence and had to be reversed.
Why This Decision Matters for Minnesota Public Safety Employees Everywhere
This ruling has meaning beyond one individual case.
A narrow, moment-by-moment approach could lead to unfair results. The court made it clear that PERA cannot slice a dangerous assignment into isolated, safe moments to avoid paying benefits. For example, if an officer responds to an active shooter call, they are performing an inherently dangerous duty. PERA cannot argue that the officer loses protection the moment they step out of their squad car, just because opening a car door is a normal, everyday action.
Instead, the decision reinforces a more practical approach: the entire duty must be considered in context, especially when evaluating whether an injury occurred during inherently dangerous work.
For Minnesota public employees who rely on PERA benefits, this clarification helps ensure that claims are evaluated based on real-world job conditions, not snapshots.
After Years of Appeals, Officer Stoler Prevailed
After years of proceedings, Officer Stoler was ultimately awarded duty disability benefits. The final decision included:
- A higher monthly benefit that is not taxable until age 55
- Retroactive payments dating back to her final employment date with the Metropolitan Airports Commission
- Access to employer-based health insurance coverage
Guidance from Attorneys Who Work With First Responders
This ruling is a massive victory for police officers, firefighters, and first responders across Minnesota. It stops state agencies from using bureaucratic technicalities to minimize the real, everyday dangers faced by public safety workers.
Meshbesher & Spence has been representing injured Minnesotans since 1961. With more than 60 years of experience, 25 attorneys, and over 1,000 clients served each year, our firm has built a long record of handling injury and disability cases across Minnesota.
Reach out to us today online or by calling (612) 339-9121 to learn more about our practical, straightforward approach to helping clients understand their options and move forward.
Proudly Representing Minnesota Residents
| Related Resources |
| If you found this PERA disability content helpful, please view the related topics below: Minnesota PERA MSRS Lawyer Meet Our Workers’ Compensation Attorneys Attorney Ashley Biermann Secures Huge Win for First Responders Contact us if you have specific questions on the matter or if you’d like to schedule a free consultation. |