Anderson v. Frontier Communications
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Halverson v. AstrueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Gillette v. Harold, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.