Knowlen v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Knowlen v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

461 N.W.2d 488, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 313, 1990 WL 161362

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 26, 1990

DocketNo. C9-90-1679

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 461 N.W.2d 488 (Knowlen v. Associated Milk 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

Knowlen v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 461 N.W.2d 488, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 313, 1990 WL 161362 (Mich. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMONETT, Justice.

This matter is before this court on a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirming a compensation judge’s award of benefits but reversing the compensation judge’s finding pertaining to maximum medical improvement.

The relators challenge the compensation judge’s findings pertaining to an award of temporary total benefits for up to 90 days past maximum medical improvement. No purpose would be served in restating the facts involved in this case. It is [489]*489sufficient, that upon a careful review of the proceedings herein, it is the opinion of this court that the findings pertaining to the causal relationship between the employee’s 1987 back injury and subsequent wage loss as well as findings pertaining to rehabilitation efforts were not manifestly contrary to the evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1984).

The relators also challenge the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ reversal of the compensation judge’s finding pertaining to the date of maximum medical improvement following the back injury on grounds that the compensation judge “failed” to consider a prior unrelated carpal tunnel injury, an issue neither raised at the compensation hearing level nor addressed by any of the parties on appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals. Generally, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ review is limited to the issues raised by the parties. Bradford v. Bureau of Engraving, 459 N.W.2d 697 (Minn.1990); Ruether v. State of Minnesota, Mankato State University, 455 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Minn.1990); Minn.Stat. § 176.421, subd. 6 (1988). The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ reversal of the finding pertaining to the date of maximum medical improvement is therefore reversed, and the compensation judge’s finding is reinstated.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

SIMONETT, Justice.

This matter is before this court on a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirming a compensation judge’s award of benefits but reversing the compensation judge’s finding pertaining to maximum medical improvement.

The relators challenge the compensation judge’s findings pertaining to an award of temporary total benefits for up to 90 days past maximum medical improvement. No purpose would be served in restating the facts involved in this case. It is [489]*489sufficient, that upon a careful review of the proceedings herein, it is the opinion of this court that the findings pertaining to the causal relationship between the employee’s 1987 back injury and subsequent wage loss as well as findings pertaining to rehabilitation efforts were not manifestly contrary to the evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1984).

The relators also challenge the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ reversal of the compensation judge’s finding pertaining to the date of maximum medical improvement following the back injury on grounds that the compensation judge “failed” to consider a prior unrelated carpal tunnel injury, an issue neither raised at the compensation hearing level nor addressed by any of the parties on appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals. Generally, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ review is limited to the issues raised by the parties. Bradford v. Bureau of Engraving, 459 N.W.2d 697 (Minn.1990); Ruether v. State of Minnesota, Mankato State University, 455 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Minn.1990); Minn.Stat. § 176.421, subd. 6 (1988). The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ reversal of the finding pertaining to the date of maximum medical improvement is therefore reversed, and the compensation judge’s finding is reinstated.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

461 N.W.2d 488, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 313, 1990 WL 161362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knowlen-v-associated-milk-producers-inc-minn-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack