Dotstry v. Radisson Hotel

266 N.W.2d 716, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1312
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 26, 1978
Docket48397
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 266 N.W.2d 716 (Dotstry v. Radisson Hotel) 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
Dotstry v. Radisson Hotel, 266 N.W.2d 716, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1312 (Mich. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lucille Dotstry seeks review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals determining that she did not sustain a personal injury arising out of and in the course of her employment as a maid at the Hotel Radisson in downtown Minneapolis. The court of appeals, with one member dissenting, set aside a contrary finding by the compensation judge and the consequent award to employee for temporary total disability. We affirm.

We have concluded that no useful purpose will be served by a recitation of the evidence. Essentially, the challenged finding is one which is predicated almost entirely upon the court of appeals’ assessment of the credibility of employee and of other former employees of the hotel who corroborated some of her testimony. We have held that when reviewing such findings we will not substitute our judgment for that of the court of appeals. Greene v. W & W Generator Rebuilders, 302 Minn. 542, 224 N.W.2d 157 (1974); Meyer v. Abel Signs, 306 Minn. 55, 236 N.W.2d 774 (1975). Moreover, although employee urges that the compensation judge, who credited the testimony in question, was in the best position to assess the witnesses’ credibility, the court of appeals is empowered to find the facts and may reverse a compensation judge on this issue. Minn.St. 176.421, subd. 6(3); Townsend v. Nelson, Minn., 242 N.W.2d 607 (1976). Since the evidence on the critical issue of a work-related injury was conflicting, under settled rules governing our scope of review we are compelled to accept the determination of the court of appeals.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp.
424 N.W.2d 776 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1988)
Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees
358 N.W.2d 54 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1984)
Madrigal v. Seeley
281 N.W.2d 366 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1979)
Spilman v. Morey Fish Co.
270 N.W.2d 781 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1978)
Smith v. Fenske's Suburban Sanitation
266 N.W.2d 892 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 N.W.2d 716, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dotstry-v-radisson-hotel-minn-1978.