Legal Opinion

Vogel v. Hochhalter

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 17, 1994No. C0-93-2119PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge.

Appellant Carol Vogel appeals the district court’s summary judgment determination that her exclusive remedy for a work-related injury is under Minnesota’s Workers’ Compensation Act. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Carol Vogel was employed by respondent Don Hochhalter d/b/a Viking Inn when she injured her ankle while pushing a laundry cart. At the time of the injury, Hochhalter was not covered by workers’ compensation insurance. He had previously requested and applied for a workers’ compensation policy through his insurance agent. Due to the agent’s negligence, however, the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Erickson v. KingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  3. Brown v. L. A. Wells Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Smith v. Michigan State Accident FundMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Olsen v. KlingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Leona Seal, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Nicholson J. Tinker v. Mark C. Welty d/b/a North Country ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API