Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gillette v. Harold, Inc., 101 N.W.2d 200.

75 citing documents.

Jensen v. Kronick's Floor Covering Service 245 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1976
2 See, Barcel v. Barrel Finish, 304 Minn. 536 , Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313
Meyers v. Electro-Static Finishing, Inc. 230 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1975
Meyers v. Electro-Static Finishing, Inc. 230 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1975
Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , Larson v. Davidson-Boutell Co. 258 Minn. 64
Grau v. International Milling, Inc. 220 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1974
Grau v. International Milling, Inc. 220 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1974
The argument is based primarily upon the holding in Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , that a preexisting infirmity does not disqualify a claim arising out of employment if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the infirmity to produce the disability.
Vanda v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 218 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1974
Vanda v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 218 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1974
Forseen v. Tire Retread Co. Inc. 271 Minn. 399 , Larson v. Davidson-Boutell Co. 258 Minn. 64 , Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313
Johnson v. Armour & Company 210 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1973
Johnson v. Armour & Company 210 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1973
Since our decision in Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , the aggravation and acceleration of a preexisting physical defect have been compensable personal injuries within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of this state.
Salmon v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY 161 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1968
Salmon v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY 161 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1968
Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , 101 N. W. (2d) 200 .
Stibbs v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 152 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1967
Stibbs v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 152 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1967
k was more likely the result of his work than the natural progression of degenerative heart disease?” This, argues relator, applies an “either-or” test; that is, either the work caused his death or the degenerative heart disease caused his death, while it is enough to show that the employment is a proximate, contributing cause of the disability or death, citing in support Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , 101 N. W. (2d) 200 .
Knaeble v. Custom Tool & Manufacturing Co. 142 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1966
Knaeble v. Custom Tool & Manufacturing Co. 142 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1966
2 Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , 101 N. W. (2d) 200 .
Forseen v. Tire Retread Company 136 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1965
Forseen v. Tire Retread Company 136 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1965
He based his decision upon Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , 101 N. W. (2d) 200 .
Hickory v. Hickory Insulation Co. 134 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1965
Hickory v. Hickory Insulation Co. 134 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1965
excessive or otherwise, seems to bring on any hemorrhages of this kind and certainly practically never does it result in hemorrhages from aneurysms.” It is the contention of relator that the work performed by decedent during the day aggravated the condition which resulted in his death and that accordingly she should be permitted to recover under the authorities cited in Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , 101 N. W. (2d) 200 .
Fisher v. RED & WHITE TAXI COMPANY 133 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1965
Fisher v. RED & WHITE TAXI COMPANY 133 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1965
16, defines “personal injury” as an “injury arising out of and in the course of employment and includes personal injury caused by occupational disease; * * *.” Relator cites Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , 101 N. W. (2d) 200 , as controlling.
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Bachrach 120 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1963
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Bachrach 120 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1963
employee is in the discharge of the duties of his occupation or is engaged in some activity necessarily incidental thereto, in the furtherance of the employer’s business, the policy provisions would not apply.” Defendant considers it significant and urges that the record in this case fails to establish that the heart damage sustained by defendant was “caused by accident.” Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313 , 101 N. W. (2d) 200 , does note that the 1953 revision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Larson v. Davidson-Boutell Co. 102 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1960
Larson v. Davidson-Boutell Co. 102 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1960
This court in Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 257 Minn. 313, 319 , 101 N. W. (2d) 200, 205 , recently said in considering this section: “* * * Under the law as it now exists the employee is compensated for ‘personal injury’ arising out of and in the course of employment.