Williams v. Fauver

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Williams v. Fauver

198 N.W.2d 287, 293 Minn. 511, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1261

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 2, 1972

DocketNo. 43272

StatusPublished

This text of 198 N.W.2d 287 (Williams v. Fauver) 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

Williams v. Fauver, 198 N.W.2d 287, 293 Minn. 511, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1261 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Certiorari to review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying workmen’s compensation benefits to relator, who had been employed by respondent Zumbro Beauty Shop.

Two competent medical witnesses appeared at the hearing before the compensation judge. The one called by the employee-relator was of the opinion that the disease which disables relator was probably caused by use in her employment of a certain hair spray. The medical witness called by respondents expressed the opinion that there was no connection between the disease and relator’s employment. We have held on previous occasions that conflicting opinions of medical experts are primarily for the determination of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. See, Henrichs v. Essig Co-op. Creamery Assn. 293 Minn. 492, 198 N. W. 2d 135 (1972); Murphy v. Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. 292 Minn. 450, 194 N. W. 2d 189 (1972).

We have reviewed the record. The decision of the commission that the employee’s disability did not arise out of her employment is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Certiorari to review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying workmen’s compensation benefits to relator, who had been employed by respondent Zumbro Beauty Shop.

Two competent medical witnesses appeared at the hearing before the compensation judge. The one called by the employee-relator was of the opinion that the disease which disables relator was probably caused by use in her employment of a certain hair spray. The medical witness called by respondents expressed the opinion that there was no connection between the disease and relator’s employment. We have held on previous occasions that conflicting opinions of medical experts are primarily for the determination of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. See, Henrichs v. Essig Co-op. Creamery Assn. 293 Minn. 492, 198 N. W. 2d 135 (1972); Murphy v. Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. 292 Minn. 450, 194 N. W. 2d 189 (1972).

We have reviewed the record. The decision of the commission that the employee’s disability did not arise out of her employment is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.W.2d 287, 293 Minn. 511, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-fauver-minn-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack