Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co.

524 N.W.2d 460, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 488, 1994 WL 380489

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 29, 1994

DocketCX-93-1334, C8-93-1560

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 524 N.W.2d 460 (Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co., 524 N.W.2d 460, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 488, 1994 WL 380489 (Mich. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions of Paper Calmenson & Company and MAK Oil Company for further review of a decision of the court of appeals, 515 N.W.2d 59, be, and the same are, granted for the limited purpose of allocating the proceeds of the suit brought by the employee against the third party who was entitled to Lambert-son contribution from the employer. The mechanics of the allocation that includes a Lamberbson obligation are that the “third party tortfeasor * ⅜ * should pay the entire verdict * ⅜ * to the plaintiff. The employer should then contribute to the third party tortfeasor an amount proportionate to its percentage of negligence, but not to exceed the amount of workers’ compensation benefits payable to the employee [and] the employee * ⅜ * should then reimburse the employer pursuant to 176.061, subd. 6(c).” *461 Johnson v. Raske Building Systems, 276 N.W.2d 79, 81 (1979). The employer’s maximum contribution liability is determined by computing the subrogation interest which includes benefits paid and payable. See Kempa v. E.W. Coons Co., 370 N.W.2d 414 (Minn.1985). When allocated according to Johnson, PaCal should pay Albert the entire verdict ($1,962,108). The employer, MAK Oil, should then contribute to PaCal the amount proportionate to its percentage of negligence, but not to exceed the amount of workers’ compensation benefits payable to Albert ($654,036). Albert should then reimburse MAK Oil pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 176.061, subd. 6(c) ($362,121), leaving MAK Oil with the credit of $334,216 against future benefits.

The petitions for further review are in all other respects denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of the Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association for leave to participate as amicus curiae is denied.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith Chief Justice

SIMONETT, J., took no part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions of Paper Calmenson & Company and MAK Oil Company for further review of a decision of the court of appeals, 515 N.W.2d 59, be, and the same are, granted for the limited purpose of allocating the proceeds of the suit brought by the employee against the third party who was entitled to Lambert-son contribution from the employer. The mechanics of the allocation that includes a Lamberbson obligation are that the “third party tortfeasor * ⅜ * should pay the entire verdict * ⅜ * to the plaintiff. The employer should then contribute to the third party tortfeasor an amount proportionate to its percentage of negligence, but not to exceed the amount of workers’ compensation benefits payable to the employee [and] the employee * ⅜ * should then reimburse the employer pursuant to 176.061, subd. 6(c).” *461 Johnson v. Raske Building Systems, 276 N.W.2d 79, 81 (1979). The employer’s maximum contribution liability is determined by computing the subrogation interest which includes benefits paid and payable. See Kempa v. E.W. Coons Co., 370 N.W.2d 414 (Minn.1985). When allocated according to Johnson, PaCal should pay Albert the entire verdict ($1,962,108). The employer, MAK Oil, should then contribute to PaCal the amount proportionate to its percentage of negligence, but not to exceed the amount of workers’ compensation benefits payable to Albert ($654,036). Albert should then reimburse MAK Oil pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 176.061, subd. 6(c) ($362,121), leaving MAK Oil with the credit of $334,216 against future benefits.

The petitions for further review are in all other respects denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of the Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association for leave to participate as amicus curiae is denied.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith Chief Justice

SIMONETT, J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 N.W.2d 460, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 488, 1994 WL 380489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-v-paper-calmenson-co-minn-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack