the PPD rating schedule “presupposes that there is an abstract and uniform measure of ‘disability’ that is valid and fair for all persons, apart from their activities or occupations.” Id. at § 80.05[9] (“What * * * does ‘loss of use’ of three fingers mean? Loss of use for what purpose? For typesetting or for unskilled labor?”). Moreover, the relationship between the PPD ratings and the actual or presumed ability to work is further attenuated by the inclusion of certain internal organ impairments in the PPD rating schedule that may have little or no conceivable effect on earning capacity. See, e.g., Minn. R. 5223.0060, subps. 7.D and 7.E (assigning percentages of disability for impairment of the reproductive and urinary systems); see also Metzger, 59 Minn. Workers’ Comp. Dec. at 238-39 (<HOLDING>). In addition to raising the foregoing
holding that an employee who returned to work for six years following his workrelated injury could nevertheless obtain permanent total disability benefits and observing that it may be years before the effect of an injury is felt holding that officers could execute a warrantless arrest of someone standing in the threshold of her dwelling holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that an employee could in order to meet the applicable ptd threshold include among her ratable ppd impairments a nonworkrelated hysterectomy performed 25 years before her work injury