Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Pera Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided November 15, 2005No. A04-2407Published

1DissentDietzen, Judge

I respectfully dissent. This is a case of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn.1998). Yet “[w]hen the meaning of a statute is doubtful, courts should give great weight to a construction placed upon it by the Department charged with its administration.” Mammenga v. State Dept. of Human Servs., 442 N.W.2d 786, 792 (Minn.1989) (quotation omitted).

Relator claims that he is entitled to line-of-duty disability benefits because he was exposed to a hostile work environment over a period of. months, and that his…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  2. Mammenga v. State Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  3. In Re Matter of HildebrandtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
  4. Application of AllersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API