Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Matter of Dillon, 413 N.W.2d 507.

14 citing documents.

James Jurgensen, Relator, vs. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., and TBG Claims Services, Respondents Minn. 2025
d 507, 511–12 (Minn. 1987) (concluding that the statutory amendment at issue “clearly manifested a legislative intent that it should have retrospective application” when the statute contained the following language: “[These changes] are effective for all cases pending on July 1, 1983, regardless of the date of injury, da
Neomi Schmidt, Minn. 2023
The determination of a Gillette injury “depends primarily on medical evidence.” accord Steffen, d at 581.
Noga v. Minn. Vikings Football Club 931 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2019
512 (Minn. 1987) ; Livgard v. Cornelius Co. , 308 Minn. 467 , , 310-11 (1976) ; Cowell v. Minnegas Co. , 286 Minn. 535 , , 85 (1970) ; Knopp v. Gutterman , 258 Minn. 33 , , 694-96 (1960).
Busch v. Advanced Maintenance 659 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 2003
But the computation of the amount and period of compensation due the.employee "‘has nothing to do with equitable apportionment— the proportionate allocation of liability among various employers and insurers ⅜ * ” Johnson v. Tech Group, Inc., ().
Fleener v. CBM Industries 564 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1997
Stone v. Lakehead Constructors 533 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1995
We are not unmindful of the employee’s obligation to prove the quantum of disability attributable to each of several injuries, and ordinarily we would agree with the WCCA that permanent partial disability benefits should be apportioned pursuant to Minn.Stat.
Steffen v. Target Stores 517 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1994
Reed v. United Van Bus Delivery 517 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1994
In that the 1987 amendment requires an allocation of liability, a question that depends primarily on medical evidence, anyone seeking Fund reimbursement would be well advised to seek apportionment opinions even prior to application.
Johnson v. Tech Group, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1992
Further, computing the amount and period of compensation payable under these circumstances “has nothing to do with equitable apportionment— the proportionate allocation of liability among various employers and insurers * * cited in DeNardo v. Divine Redeemer Mem.
Wschola v. Snyder 478 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Klimmek v. Independent School Dist.
DeNardo v. Divine Redeemer Memorial Hospital 450 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1990
Once a specific permanency rating has been assigned to a discrete work-related injury, it is apparent that the imposition of liability for PPD benefits “has nothing to do with equitable apportionment.” See, at 299 (Minn.1990, filed herewith) ().
Kulp v. Sheraton Ritz Hotel 450 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1990
Once it is understood that the WCCA assigned a separate permanency rating to each of two discrete work-related injuries, it is apparent that allocation of responsibility for those injuries to the responsible employer “has nothing to do with equitable apportionment.”
Kulenkamp v. Timesavers, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1988
State v. Traczyk 421 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1988