Legal Opinion

Conaway v. St. Louis County

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided August 16, 2005No. A04-2350PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MINGE, Judge.

In challenging summary judgment, appellant argues that the district court erred in determining that respondent is entitled to continued health-insurance coverage under Minn.Stat. § 299A.465 (2004) because (1) respondent began suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder before the statute became effective, and the statute cannot be applied retroactively; (2) Minn.Stat. § 299A.411 (2004) provides the only benefits for a peace officer disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder; and (3) respondent is not disabled, as defined by Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, or there is at least a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Summers v. R & D AGENCY, INC.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
  2. Nash v. WollanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
  3. Kasch v. Clearwater CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. Mid-City Hotel Associates v. Hennepin County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. KilmerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  2. Amundson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API