Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jones v. Thermo King

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 2, 1990No. C8-90-1365Published

1DissentYetka, Justice

I would reverse the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals and hold that there is a compensable claim which is not barred by the statute of limitations. I would then remand to the compensation judge for determination of benefits.

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to give timely notice to the employer, who can then prepare a defense. The workers’ compensation statutes require that notice of injury be given to the employer and that a claim for benefits be filed within 3 years after notice of the injury.

In this case, the employee gave notice, but he filed his claim 3 years and 3 months…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Issacson v. Minnetonka, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  2. Bloese v. Twin City Etching, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API