Minnesota statute requires that all compensable work injuries must "arise out of and in the course of employment". The "arising out of" requirement is a "legal causation" test. For an injury to arise out of employment there must be a causal connection between the employment and the injury. Minnesota Workers' Compensation courts have developed over the years different theories to try to measure whether a sufficient causal connection between employment and the injury exists. Five major legal tests arise with consistency: peculiar risk, increased risk, actual risk, positional risk, and proximate causation.
Increased Risk Test: The increased risk test has been found by the Minnesota Supreme Court to have been satisfied If the injury follows "as a natural incident of the work...as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment." Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 268, 271 (Minn. 1992). An example of an injury that could be found to be compensable due to an an "increased risk" would be if an employee developed asthma after being continually exposed to a dusty work environment. The theory of compensability would be that the employee having to be exposed to the dust while at work increased the risk of the employee developing asthma.
Therefore, If you think you have an injury that is related to your work, feel free to contact either John Bailey or myself to discuss the circumstances of your injury.