Wallin v. Gust Lagerquist & Sons

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Wallin v. Gust Lagerquist & Sons

251 N.W. 669, 190 Minn. 335, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 925

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 15, 1933

DocketNo. 29,698.

StatusPublished

This text of 251 N.W. 669 (Wallin v. Gust Lagerquist & Sons) 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

Wallin v. Gust Lagerquist & Sons, 251 N.W. 669, 190 Minn. 335, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 925 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari to the industrial commission to review an order denying compensation.

The industrial commission concluded that relator had long since completed recovery from whatever disability he suffered by reason of an industrial accident August 29, 1929. He Avas totally disabled until sometime in December, 1929. He then took up light work, which he continued until April 5, 1930. Then he resumed his former occupation and April lá, 1930, executed final receipt for his compensation. In March, 1932, he was “let out” by his employers, not because of disability or claim thereof, but because they did not have the work to permit them to continue his employment. There is credible medical testimony supporting the conclusion that relator is uoav suffering no disability attributable to his accident. Having such support in the evidence, nothing more need be said to show that the decision of the industrial commission should not be disturbed.

The Avrit is discharged and the order of the commission 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.

The industrial commission concluded that relator had long since completed recovery from whatever disability he suffered by reason of an industrial accident August 29, 1929. He Avas totally disabled until sometime in December, 1929. He then took up light work, which he continued until April 5, 1930. Then he resumed his former occupation and April lá, 1930, executed final receipt for his compensation. In March, 1932, he was “let out” by his employers, not because of disability or claim thereof, but because they did not have the work to permit them to continue his employment. There is credible medical testimony supporting the conclusion that relator is uoav suffering no disability attributable to his accident. Having such support in the evidence, nothing more need be said to show that the decision of the industrial commission should not be disturbed.

The Avrit is discharged and the order of the commission affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 N.W. 669, 190 Minn. 335, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallin-v-gust-lagerquist-sons-minn-1933.