Ray v. City of Maple Grove

I agree that the arbitrators denied setoff of the workers’ compensation payments, but I concur in allowing what appears to be a double recovery only because I believe Kerst-ing and Austin are controlling. See Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 486 N.W.2d 457 (Minn.App.), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 4, 1992); Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Ins., 456 N.W.2d 270 (Minn.App.1990).