Legal Opinion

Huisenga v. Opus Corp.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 31, 1992No. C3-92-807PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.

We are asked to revisit our decision in Jewison v. Frerichs, 434 N.W.2d 259 (Minn.1989). In Jewison, we held that, in some situations, if a job applicant or an employee makes a false representation regarding physical condition or health, workers’ compensation benefits will be barred. Today we address the question of whether an employer may avoid paying benefits when a job applicant or employee has made a false representation regarding health or physical condition in response to a question posed by the employer which requests health and medical information unrelated to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. ThurstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Dothard v. RawlinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Western Air Lines, Inc. v. CriswellSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Sigurdson v. Isanti CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Downs v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
  2. Lamay v. Roswell Independent School DistrictNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Ace Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Local Union Number 292Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
  4. Elbers v. GroweCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
  5. Nicole LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P. A.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015

7 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