Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. Frontier Communications

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 10, 2012No. A11-0834Published

1Dissent

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) and hold that Karl L. Anderson is entitled to seek workers’ compensation benefits for his work-related Gillette-type injury.1

My dissent is in two parts. First, I join the concise and to the point dissent of Justice Meyer. Affirming the WCCA’s decision should not require our court to say much more than what Justice Meyer has written. In fact, it requires even less. We should be summarily affirming the WCCA without even having to write an opinion. It is…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Halverson v. AstrueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
  2. Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  3. O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  4. Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  5. Gillette v. Harold, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API