Legal Opinion

Ransom v. Ford Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 19, 1991No. C8-90-2189PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COYNE, Justice.

Ford Motor Company seeks reimbursement out of workers’ compensation benefits awarded Gerald Ransom, its employee, for benefits paid Ransom by Ford pursuant to its accident and sickness plan. A compensation judge awarded Ford’s accident and sickness plan reimbursement in the amount of the disability benefits paid the employee reduced by a proportionate share of the fees awarded the employee’s lawyer. Affirming the employer’s right of reimbursement, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorneys’ fees on the ground that the employer’s benefits plan is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. FMC Corp. v. HollidaySupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Edquist v. Browning-FerrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  3. Mann v. Unity Medical Center/Health CentralSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kaiman v. Mercy Midlands Medical & Dental PlanNebraska Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. Fuller v. UllandDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
  3. Maktari v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  4. Bruton v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
  5. Kaiman v. MERCY MIDLANDS MED. & DENTAL PLANNebraska Court of Appeals · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API