Legal Opinion

Thanh Le v. Kurt Manufacturing

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 19, 1996No. C5-96-1675PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GARDEBRING, Justice.

In this workers’ compensation matter, we consider under what circumstances an intervening health care provider, excluded from settlement negotiations between the employee and the employer/insurer, is entitled to full reimbursement of its claim. The compensation judge concluded that the employee and the employer/insurer did not negotiate the intervenor’s claim in good faith and therefore, the intervenor was entitled to full reimbursement of its claim. In a split decision, the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed, relying upon Brooks v. A.M.F., Inc.,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  2. Franke v. Fabcon, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  3. Johnson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  4. Brooks v. A. M. F., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  5. Repo v. CAPITOL ELEVATOR CO., DIV. OF IMCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  2. Gamble v. Twin Cities Concrete ProductsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  3. Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  4. Lon F. Gamble v. Twin Cities Concrete Products and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Relators, Lakeview Hospital, Intevenor, Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, Dr. Elmer Kasperson, Nurse Anesthesia Services, St. Croix, Orthopaedics, Intervenors.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API