Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc.

240 N.W.2d 559, 308 Minn. 435, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1781

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 26, 1976

Docket45817

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 240 N.W.2d 559 (Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc.) 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

Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc., 240 N.W.2d 559, 308 Minn. 435, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1781 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relators seek review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board vacating an earlier award based upon a settlement. This issue' is whether in so ordering the board abused its discretion. We hold that it did not.

By authority of Minn. St. 176.461 and 176.521, the board may, for cause, set aside an award based on a settlement. We have held “cause” to include newly discovered evidence or substantial change in the employee’s condition. Wollschlager v. Standard Const. Co. 300 Minn. 550, 220 N. W. 2d 346 (1974); Mattson v. Abate, 279 Minn. 287, 156 N. W. 2d 738 (1968). The basic underlying concern in a determination of “cause” is “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132, 5 N. W. 2d 499, 501 (1942).

In the instant case, the board found that there was good cause for reopening the award in the interests of justice and because new evidence existed that was material to a determination of the degree and extent of the employee’s disability. A memorandum accompanying its order pointed out that the employee’s condition had materially changed. We have examined the record and conclude that in so ruling the board did not abuse its discretion.

Respondent-employee is allowed $350 attorneys fees on this appeal.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Relators seek review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board vacating an earlier award based upon a settlement. This issue' is whether in so ordering the board abused its discretion. We hold that it did not.

By authority of Minn. St. 176.461 and 176.521, the board may, for cause, set aside an award based on a settlement. We have held “cause” to include newly discovered evidence or substantial change in the employee’s condition. Wollschlager v. Standard Const. Co. 300 Minn. 550, 220 N. W. 2d 346 (1974); Mattson v. Abate, 279 Minn. 287, 156 N. W. 2d 738 (1968). The basic underlying concern in a determination of “cause” is “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132, 5 N. W. 2d 499, 501 (1942).

In the instant case, the board found that there was good cause for reopening the award in the interests of justice and because new evidence existed that was material to a determination of the degree and extent of the employee’s disability. A memorandum accompanying its order pointed out that the employee’s condition had materially changed. We have examined the record and conclude that in so ruling the board did not abuse its discretion.

Respondent-employee is allowed $350 attorneys fees on this appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 N.W.2d 559, 308 Minn. 435, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eigen-v-food-producers-inc-minn-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack