Ekelund v. W. N. Cardozo Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Ekelund v. W. N. Cardozo Co.

248 N.W. 824, 189 Minn. 228, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 765

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 9, 1933

DocketNo. 29,405.

StatusPublished

This text of 248 N.W. 824 (Ekelund v. W. N. Cardozo 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

Ekelund v. W. N. Cardozo Co., 248 N.W. 824, 189 Minn. 228, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 765 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari to the industrial commission to review a denial of compensation.

An eye injury is involved, due, as relator claims, to a severe bump on the head, arising out of and in the course of his employment. His own testimony and that of a corroborating witness are in direct opposition to a reasonable inference from declarations made by relator to physicians immediately after the date of the alleged injury, September 27, 1929. Those declarations were silent, and so negative, as to trauma. The decision of the commission was put upon the ground that relator’s subsequent testimonial narrative of preceding occupational injury was an afterthought. The record presents an issue of fact, the decision of which by the commission is final.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari to the industrial commission to review a denial of compensation.

An eye injury is involved, due, as relator claims, to a severe bump on the head, arising out of and in the course of his employment. His own testimony and that of a corroborating witness are in direct opposition to a reasonable inference from declarations made by relator to physicians immediately after the date of the alleged injury, September 27, 1929. Those declarations were silent, and so negative, as to trauma. The decision of the commission was put upon the ground that relator’s subsequent testimonial narrative of preceding occupational injury was an afterthought. The record presents an issue of fact, the decision of which by the commission is final.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.W. 824, 189 Minn. 228, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ekelund-v-w-n-cardozo-co-minn-1933.