Frankfurth v. Sunstar Foods, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Frankfurth v. Sunstar Foods, Inc.

358 N.W.2d 53, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1519

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided November 21, 1984·No. Nos. C7-83-1533, C0-83-1535·Published

Opinion

OPINION

TODD, Justice.

Ronald Frankfurth has received compensation for an injury sustained while employed by Armour and Company. Frank-furth was subsequently employed by Suns-tar where both he and Armour claim a new injury occurred. The compensation judge held that no new injury had occurred. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed.

We hold that the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review and that the decision is not manifestly contrary to the evidence. See Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1984) (filed herewith).

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

TODD, Justice.

Ronald Frankfurth has received compensation for an injury sustained while employed by Armour and Company. Frank-furth was subsequently employed by Suns-tar where both he and Armour claim a new injury occurred. The compensation judge held that no new injury had occurred. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed.

We hold that the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review and that the decision is not manifestly contrary to the evidence. See Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1984) (filed herewith).

Affirmed.

Frankfurth v. Sunstar Foods, Inc., 358 N.W.2d 53, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1519 (Mich. 1984).

Pincite

358 N.W.2d 53 (Frankfurth v. Sunstar Foods, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related