Cited by

Koski v. Erie Mining Co., 300 Minn. 1, 5-6 , W. Ehlmann, Minnesota’s Special Compensation Fund, 6 Wm.

The policy basis for the doctrine of apportionment is that “the cost of the product or service of each employer shall proportionately ‘bear the blood of the workman.’ ” Koski v. Erie Mining Co., 300 Minn. 1, 7

Koski v. Erie Mining Co., 300 Minn. 1, 5 , W. Ehlmann, Minnesota’s Special Compensation Fund, 6 Wm.

Koski v. Erie Mining Co., 300 Minn. 1, 5-6

The purpose of the Second Injury Law is to “encourage the employment of physically impaired persons.” Koski v. Erie Mining Co., 300 Minn. 1, 5

We are not unmindful that the court of appeals cited Koski v. Erie Mining Co., 300 Minn. 1 , in support of its decision, and the parties on appeal have cited Koski for their positions.

Co., 300 Minn. 1 , and Lease v. Pemtom, Inc., 305 Minn. 6 , 2 as they may apply to the propriety of vacating the subject award.

Koski v. Erie Mining Co., 300 Minn. 1

Co. 306 Minn. 326 , ; Miller v. Norris Creameries, 306 Minn. 79 , and Koski v. Erie Mining Co. 300 Minn. 1

Co. 300 Minn. 1 , Beson v. Carleton College, 271 Minn. 268 , McGuire v. Viking Tool & Die Co. 258 Minn. 336

On November 16, 1973, we announced our decision in Koski v. Erie Mining Co. 300 Minn. 1

1971, § 176.131, our applicable second-injury statute, as construed by Koski v. Erie Mining Co. 300 Minn. 1 , does not authorize the special fund to obtain apportionment from the first employer, we are compelled to reverse and relieve Pemtom, the first employer, of its liability for disability and medical benefits.

Co. 300 Minn. 1, 6 , : “It is true that we have approved application of the equitable principle of apportioning liability between successive employers so as to require each to contribute his proportionate share of the total liability for compensation benefits due an employee.