Cermak v. Ruan Transport Corp.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Cermak v. Ruan Transport Corp.

168 N.W.2d 18, 283 Minn. 535, 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1202

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 9, 1969

DocketNo. 41597

StatusPublished

This text of 168 N.W.2d 18 (Cermak v. Ruan Transport Corp.) 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

Cermak v. Ruan Transport Corp., 168 N.W.2d 18, 283 Minn. 535, 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1202 (Mich. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Certiorari to review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

On April 5, 1966, petitioner, Louis Cermak, while employed as an over-the-road truck driver by Ruan Transport Corporation, injured his back when he attempted to keep the tractor-trailer unit he was then operating under control after a blowout of one of the front tires. He was paid disability benefits for temporary partial disability in the amount of $1,990.90 during the period from April 6, 1966 through July 7, 1967, together with hospital and medical expenses incurred by him during this time. The employer-insurer then discontinued payments asserting that there was no employment-related disability existing after July 7, 1967. Proceedings were instituted by the employee who claimed that he continued after that date to suffer a temporary total disability attributable to the accident. Although the referee to whom the matter was assigned for hearing found in favor of the employee, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, upon appeal by the employer-insurer, denied his claim, making these critical findings:

[536]*536“That since July 7, 1967, the employe has been able to do sustained labor and has not been disabled.

“That the medical expenses in the sum of $255 incurred with Dr. Shapiro were not incurred for medical care and attention reasonably needed to cure and relieve from the effects of the employe’s injury of April 5, 1966.

“That the employe is not presently in need of medical care and attention necessary to cure and relieve from the effects of his personal injury of April 5, 1966.”

The only question for decision in this court is whether the findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission are sustained by the evidence. We have examined the record in light of the briefs submitted by the parties and have concluded that the findings of fact made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission have adequate support.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Certiorari to review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

On April 5, 1966, petitioner, Louis Cermak, while employed as an over-the-road truck driver by Ruan Transport Corporation, injured his back when he attempted to keep the tractor-trailer unit he was then operating under control after a blowout of one of the front tires. He was paid disability benefits for temporary partial disability in the amount of $1,990.90 during the period from April 6, 1966 through July 7, 1967, together with hospital and medical expenses incurred by him during this time. The employer-insurer then discontinued payments asserting that there was no employment-related disability existing after July 7, 1967. Proceedings were instituted by the employee who claimed that he continued after that date to suffer a temporary total disability attributable to the accident. Although the referee to whom the matter was assigned for hearing found in favor of the employee, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, upon appeal by the employer-insurer, denied his claim, making these critical findings:

[536]*536“That since July 7, 1967, the employe has been able to do sustained labor and has not been disabled.

“That the medical expenses in the sum of $255 incurred with Dr. Shapiro were not incurred for medical care and attention reasonably needed to cure and relieve from the effects of the employe’s injury of April 5, 1966.

“That the employe is not presently in need of medical care and attention necessary to cure and relieve from the effects of his personal injury of April 5, 1966.”

The only question for decision in this court is whether the findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission are sustained by the evidence. We have examined the record in light of the briefs submitted by the parties and have concluded that the findings of fact made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission have adequate support.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W.2d 18, 283 Minn. 535, 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cermak-v-ruan-transport-corp-minn-1969.