by the third-party tortfeasor who caused his injury. Permitting Sayre to pursue his claim for loss of future earning capacity should achieve this result. Federal case law, while not controlling, is instructive and consistent with our holding. See, e.g., Van Gordon v. Beaver, 928 F.Supp. 858, 865 (D.Minn.1996), (limiting employee’s action against third-party tortfeasor to damages not compensable under workers’ compensation but permitting employee to include in that action future chiropractic expenses because “she bears some potential of incurring such expenses without reimbursement from the Employer/Insurer”). DECISION Sayre may pursue his claim for loss of earning capacity against the tortfeasor. Reversed. 1 . See Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891, 893-94 (Minn.1977) (<HOLDING>). A reverse-Naig settlement occurs when the
holding that section 319s mandate that the employer is subrogated  to the extent of compensation payable does not mean that the sole right to recover from the tortfeasor is in the employer rather the right of action against the tortfeasor remains in the injured employee and suit is to be commenced in his name holding that injured employee has right to settle with thirdparty tortfeasor claims not covered by minnesota workers compensation act holding that the workers compensation act does not violate either the united states or minnesota constitution despite employees waiver of the right to a jury trial and providing employers with exemption from commonlaw liabilities holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future holding that thirdparty tortfeasor has right to contribution from employer up to amount of employers workers compensation liability