Legal Opinion

Jones v. Thermo King

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 2, 1990No. C8-90-1365PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SIMONETT, Justice.

The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals panel, by a 2-to-l vote, affirmed the determination of the compensation judge that the employee’s claim for Gillette-type1 injuries was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

*916For some years employee Charles A. Jones operated an electric spray gun in the paint department of his employer, Thermo King. In 1982 he was experiencing pain and numbness in both hands and wrists. The. company nurse referred him to Dr. Chris P. Tountas, who, on February 15, 1983, diagnosed a bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The next day, the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gillette v. Harold, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  2. Issacson v. Minnetonka, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  3. Pease v. Minnesota Steel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
  4. Barcel v. Barrel FinishSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Bloese v. Twin City Etching, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Berry v. Boeing Military AirplanesCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1994
  2. Brunell v. Wildwood Crest Police DepartmentSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  3. Anderson v. Frontier CommunicationsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  4. Lofgren v. Pieper FarmsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  5. Allied Fibers v. RhodesCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1996

3 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