McCarty v. City of Cloquet

Supreme Court of Minnesota

McCarty v. City of Cloquet

265 N.W. 42, 196 Minn. 391, 1936 Minn. LEXIS 972

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 7, 1936

DocketNo. 30,655.

StatusPublished

This text of 265 N.W. 42 (McCarty v. City of Cloquet) 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

McCarty v. City of Cloquet, 265 N.W. 42, 196 Minn. 391, 1936 Minn. LEXIS 972 (Mich. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Certiorari to the industrial commission to review an order denying compensation for the death of relator’s husband, Edward McCarty.

Mr. McCarty departed this life March |0, 1934, while engaged in the course of his employment by respondent city of Cloquet as a laborer in its woodyard. The cause of death was a sudden stoppage of heart action resulting from hypertrophy incidental to high blood pressure, coupled with arteriosclerosis. As to whether the physical exertion of Mr. McCarty’s work was a contributing cause, there is conflicting medical testimony. Assuming that it was, still, under the rule of Stanton v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co. 195 Minn. 457, 263 N. W. 433, there was no showing of accidental cause within the workmen’s compensation law. 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 4326(h). It follows that the order denying compensation must be and is 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 an order denying compensation for the death of relator’s husband, Edward McCarty.

Mr. McCarty departed this life March |0, 1934, while engaged in the course of his employment by respondent city of Cloquet as a laborer in its woodyard. The cause of death was a sudden stoppage of heart action resulting from hypertrophy incidental to high blood pressure, coupled with arteriosclerosis. As to whether the physical exertion of Mr. McCarty’s work was a contributing cause, there is conflicting medical testimony. Assuming that it was, still, under the rule of Stanton v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co. 195 Minn. 457, 263 N. W. 433, there was no showing of accidental cause within the workmen’s compensation law. 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 4326(h). It follows that the order denying compensation must be and is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 N.W. 42, 196 Minn. 391, 1936 Minn. LEXIS 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarty-v-city-of-cloquet-minn-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack