Schultz v. MacHovec Food Market

358 N.W.2d 155, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3810
Court of Appeals of Minnesota·Decided November 20, 1984·No. C1-84-1280·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

LESLIE, Judge.

FACTS

Respondent Donald Schultz was employed by relator Machovec Food Market as a driver until he was allegedly terminated from his employment on January 17, 1984. Relator alleges respondent quit. The Commissioner of Economic Security determined that the discharge was involun *156 tary and for reasons other than misconduct. Relator requests a remand of the case to the appeal tribunal for taking of further evidence.

DECISION

Substantial evidence in the record of the hearing before the department referee supports the Commissioner’s determination. White v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 332 N.W.2d 25, 27 (Minn.1983). The Commissioner did not err by refusing to remand the matter for additional testimony solely because relator was not represented by counsel and did not present all the testimony it now feels would be helpful.

Affirmed.

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

Schultz v. MacHovec Food Market, 358 N.W.2d 155, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3810 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

358 N.W.2d 155 (Schultz v. MacHovec Food Market) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Turnquist v. Amoco Oil Co.
397 N.W.2d 442 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)
Kampa v. Normandale Tennis Club
393 N.W.2d 195 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)
Zielinski v. Ryan Co.
379 N.W.2d 157 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)
McLean v. Plastics, Inc.
378 N.W.2d 104 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)